CONGRATULATIONS!!

In the video, the tutor describes this as an "A->B" statement. However, could I think of this as an "A->B->C" statement? When diagramming this during my drilling, I wrote out this (experiment->apply stats->training stats). This conditional relied upon the assumption that applying stats requires understanding stats, but I think that's a reasonable assumption. Anyways, I understand why A is correct, but I just want to make sure that I'm not making a basic mapping error. Thank you!

With this set of facts, would it be possible to conclude that any contract was valid? Based on my understanding of necessity/sufficiency, I assume that it wouldn't be possible, but I want to make sure I thoroughly understand this when I approach similar questions in the future.