I'm not quite sure about the Joint Sufficient Condition Framework.

/purpose -> (resident->prohibit)

=> /purpose and resident -> prohibit

I understand it up to this point. But then, if /purpose is triggered, does that mean I should "follow the rest of the rule" so that "resident->prohibit"? Wouldn't resident need to be satisfied as a sufficient condition for the necessary condition "prohibit" to be triggered? I read a related question and answer below, but I'm still not entirely sure how it works.

Quick question about the example sentence on the diagram sheet:

Implicit exclusion of all: Though reading is a challenge for students this young, some students in Mr. Stoop's class can read.

Can anyone explain how this sentence implies exclusion of all?

After reading the replies below, my understanding is that, in a nutshell, you cannot derive absolute claims from relative statements, nor relative statements from absolute claims. Am I on the right track?

#feedback I think my initial confusion might have started, in part, due to how the diagrams for both relative and absolute statements seem almost identical unless you look at them individually.