@DrewBecker If R --> A. /A, therefore /R

In order to be a rock climber, one must be an athlete. One is not an athlete, therefore one is not a rock climber.

If I am drinking coffee, then I am awake.

If C--> A

If I am not awake, then I am not drinking coffee

If /A --> /C

@DrewBecker Sorry - This argument does say that X is sufficient for B. I meant to say that the argument you propose doesn't satisfy the terms of a conditional argument. Sorry, this probably was more confusing than helpful

@JibrilAbdrabboh This is a valid argument form, but is a different argument than the one discussed. What you're saying is "If A then B. If X then A. Therefore If X then B".

The arrow represents a conditional relationship, so the argument you make only concludes that there is a conditional relationship between X and B, not that X is sufficient for B.

This probably isn't important for the LSAT, but the argument form you're invoking is called a hypothetical syllogism. Good luck, and I hope this helps!:)