I don't mean to nit-pick, but when you say that the "hot surfaces are red," in lawgic form is it like this: Hot Surface --> Red ?

If you satisfy the necessary, then the rule is irrelevant, right? Genuinely asking, how does "x are y" translate?

I understood the reasoning behind why (B) would be the correct answer, but I didn't quite understand why (E) would have NOT been correct given your explanation. You asked where the conditions would demand for the Executive Administrator to not have a felony charge. Well, the way I read it, it says that to be appointed to the executive board, you can't have a felony record (If felony, then no executive board. The Executive Administrator is part of the executive board. Therefore, if felony, then no Executive Administrator).

For me, (E) was wrong because there is no assumption necessary--the argument clearly states that a felony charge disqualifies you from appointment to the executive board. The need for a "relevance" of the felony to the position is nonexistent--any felony charge would bar you from being appointed.. ? It seemed to me that your explanation was implying that there was nothing stating that a felony charge would disqualify you from being an Executive Administrator. Not directly, but reasonably so through "transitive" property? I'd just like some clarification--thanks, J.Y.

I would just represent this rule through two quicker diagrams:

T - W or Z - V: (left to right:: slowest to fastest)

and

T - W or V - Z: (left to right:: slowest to fastest)

In either world, W can switch spots with only one other letter.