Literally laughed at this question. Ridiculous.

@EthieMilner my exact reaction

@Elecoo thank you for coming back to update!

i got this one wrong but got the previous question correct... bruh

@qboylan The logic in answer choice A is valid, but answer choice B is flawed in the same way as the stimulus.

The stimulus says:

Premise: healthy bones -> include sufficient calcium

Conclusion: /healthy bones -> /include sufficient calcium

This is not logically valid.

Answer choice A is valid because the conclusion is just the premise in its contrapositive form:

Premise: firm crust -> right temperature

Conclusion: /right temperatue -> /firm crust

But answer choice B makes the same mistake as the stimulus:

Premise: good taste -> right amount of flour

Conclusion: /good taste -> /right amount of flour

So, answer choice A flips and negates correctly, while answer choice B (just like the stimulus) only negates both sides. I hope that makes sense!

@yade this is pretty much identical to the way I approached answer choice E

@ratman23 me too lol

@MaimounaTraore same, so much easier than sufficient assumption imo

@SofiyaBerman what an unnecessarily rude comment

@AnthonyEdwards#1Fan me too ugh

@Arsalan06 this tripped me up too. There's an explanation by MinjunJin above that explains it well

@Min this helped so much, thank you

@AndreaGuillen805 love this

@Brie97 The key is figuring out which condition is sufficient and which is necessary. The sufficient is the smaller circle (subset), and the necessary is the bigger circle (superset). I just try to remember SS = Sufficient Small lol.

@Ryo same haha