@[Deleted] I think because "no one" was on the side of the hamburger in the sentence, in the original Lawgic we would original have "not eating burger," so we already have /hamburger.

If we put that term as the negate sufficient, then we get:

hamburger -> beer

If we put beer term as negate sufficient, then we get:

/beer -> /hamburger

@vdp76503 negating some results in none. Since "some" ranges from at least one to all, to negate "some" would be to say none.

@NityaMaid "Everyone" would mean "all people." If one is a person, then they enjoy the movies.

Basically we're looking for a statement that will bridge the premises to the conclusion. Looking at the example given, the premises seems completely disjointed from the conclusion. This missing rule question is basically asking how can we make these premises make sense in the argument. So by making the disjointed premises into sufficient conditions for the conclusion, we are making a bridge to connect these statements together in order to make the argument more valid.

Adding the missing rule into the argument makes it more valid. Here's what I think it would look like after adding it:

If a person lives in NYC in a building with more than ten units, and that person has kept an animal openly and notoriously for three months or more, then that person has an inalienable right to keep that animal as a pet. Percy lives with his poodle in a New York City residential buildings with more than ten units. Therefore, if Percy has openly and notoriously kept his poodle for three months or more, then his landlord cannot force him to get rid of it.

Is this correct?

@A man has no name Basically we're looking for a statement that will bridge the premises to the conclusion. Looking at the example given, the premises seems completely disjointed from the conclusion. This missing rule question is basically asking how can we make these premises make sense in the argument. So by making the disjointed premises into sufficient conditions for the conclusion, we are making a bridge to connect these statements together in order to make the argument more valid.

Adding the missing rule into the argument makes it more valid. Here's what I think it would look like after adding it:

If a person lives in NYC in a building with more than ten units, and that person has kept an animal openly and notoriously for three months or more, then that person has an inalienable right to keep that animal as a pet. Percy lives with his poodle in a New York City residential buildings with more than ten units. Therefore, if Percy has openly and notoriously kept his poodle for three months or more, then his landlord cannot force him to get rid of it.

@CamilleChmura Me too, but I see that "acted" is referring to the action of rejecting (the plan). It seems that referentials do not necessarily have to fit in a certain category of words

@rabed18353 like MattDegz14 says, A is a conditional statement. But also A is incorporating the premise into the conclusion whereas the question is just asking for the main conclusion, not a mixing of the premise with the conclusion

@lizs1 No, not every indicator is included since there are just so many out there