@Itachi119 Good question! I would say B will fail as now B can't no longer guarantee the conclusion.

@sydlaw What I have understand is that PSA tells you about a stuff that you are assuming to get into the conclusion. the statement although already in the conclusion if I say it in the premises my conclusion is guaranteed

example:

a->b premises

a->c conclusion

b->c this is the gap

@suhyahn My finance background is crying in the back.

@AlinorSmith lets start the question at the end says the conclusion which is that the corporations actions influenced the govt funding it means if ABC LLC says I like Oreo then the govt will give subsidy to Oreo parent company. and we are here to say that this is right.

A) and B) when I see a I see the govt initiative although it does have a point but we not looking for alternate hypothesis we are here to see that there is an argument who is saying yes govt do invest in Oreo if ABC LLC says so. and here actually a and b are providing alter explanation and this is the basic assumption of a weakening option.

C) on the other hand lets say ABC LLC told the govt to close down all the firm who are making formula to destroy Oreo in the market now the govt will shut down the company that ABC LLC said so this shows that govt will do whatever ABC LLC says and this is what we are finding as it does strengthen the argument that ABC LLC is the real boss.

it was like Elon and trump after election but before their fight.

@kriskanya_ So, where should we applied this and should we then just cut the second rule as it does not provide us valid conclusion via chain??

I have a question about contrapositive. how can we use it in quantifiers? and can we even do that?

@JDMurphy If you see it virtually you will understand: let's say pets include dog cat and rat in a ratio of 40:38:22

so if some cats are pets its saying 38% of cats are pet why? and what?; well cats includes all tigers, lions and cats at a ratio of 40:40:20 see of those only 20 are pets means 20% of cats are pet but those 20% constitute as 38% in pets world,

Now, in the second sentence pets who are they dog, cat and rat and some of them aka 38% are still cats.

one more example

like some Asians are Indian

some Indian are Asian use the above concept you will understand.

@Mina.G Well actually it does just think Y is more qualified then McG so, we can say Someone else will be elected who is less than y in terms of qualifications AKA McG.

NOW, Stop stimulus says if polls are inaccurate then slater will win you can also use the formula taught in the foundation course which is if unless is given then choose one point and negate it and put it in the sufficient and 2 in the necessary.

so you end-up with /polls->sw

In the first sentence you got sw->mcga

therefore, /polls->sw->mcg

Now read e) which says if polls are not a good indicator then-> mcga

I am sure you are confuse with a see a is saying /poll->ya