@16dnholli I've been stuck on this question for a while and found something that might help you and others.

So, given:

/Social Integrity --> /Freedom

We need to prove:

/ROL --> /Freedom

---------------------------------------------------

(A) would not work for the following reason:

• The conclusion we are trying to prove demands that we start with /ROL and end with /Freedom.

• (A) cannot accomplish that.

• Here's why. Let's start by assuming (A) is true. We now have two premises to work with.

/Social Integrity --> /Freedom

and

/Social Integrity --> /ROL

Okay. Now, again, the conclusion demands that we start with /ROL and end with /Freedom. Let's take /ROL and try to see which of the two conditionals we can trigger.

As it turns out, we can't trigger any of the premises. /ROL is not a sufficient condition for any of them.

----------------------------------------------------

But (B) is different. (B) works because it satisfies the demand that we start with /ROL and end with /Freedom.

(B) states: /ROL --> /Social Integrity

The two premises we have now to work with are:

/Social Integrity --> /Freedom

and

/ROL --> /Social Integrity

The conclusion we're trying to prove starts with /ROL, so we must start there. The first part of our chain must be /ROL. Assuming /ROL, which premises can we trigger?

You'll see that we can trigger the second one, and then trigger the first one, yielding the ultimate conclusion /ROL --> /Freedom.