Side question: This argument is flawed, right? Evan states that his vegetarianism is based on the belief that it is immoral to inflict pain on animals for food. Then, he accuses vegetarians of moral inconsistency for consuming seafood, reasoning that if their rationale for vegetarianism was to avoid the moral wrong of inflicting needless suffering on other animals, then they should not exclude sea animals.

He expands his definition of pain to include needless suffering, and doesn't actually address the question of whether or not sea animals can experience pain.

I do not understand the lawgic in Question 2.

"If he doesn't kill Robb, he must kill Jon."

/R -> J

^ This makes sense, however,

/J -> R

How is it necessarily true that if Joffrey kills John, Robb must be alive? The sentence doesn't imply that Joffrey killing Jon necessitates Robb to live. Would it not possible for Joffrey to kill Robb first, then kill Jon anyways?

Would the sentence not, then, have to be structured, "Only if he doesn't kill Robb, he must kill Jon" ?