Can someone please tell me if I'm thinking this through correctly? Basically, what i understood here is:

Terry's argument:

• action good (AG) -> favorable consequences (FC) <-s-> considered bad (CB)

• conclusion: AG <-s-> CB

Pat's argument:

• CB -> /FC <-s-> AG

• conclusion: CB <-s-> AG (same as terry's)

So my understanding of why this is wrong is because you can't make valid inferences from a chain that starts with "all" and ends in "some" -- but I guess I'm having trouble with understanding how this means that the sufficient and necessary are switched?

Is it because, in a situation of:

"A -> B <-s-> C,

therefore A <-s-> C"

you are taking A, which is in the sufficient side of the "must" statement, and forcing it to be necessary in a "some" statement because both sides of a some statement are necessary?

Please let me know if my reasoning here is sound as I'm having trouble making sense of it!

Ok so I'm trying to understand how to make the jump from workers to freelance writers and how this would result in a "some" statement. if I were to diagram this to get this, would it look like:

workers -m-> /judged for quality

workers <-s-> freelance writers -> work evaluated

workers <-s-> freelance writers -> high quality work

therefore, worker's work evaluated <-s-> high quality work ?