What I have found that trips me up is thinking 'all A are B'. To me, it makes it sound like they are interchangeable ideas, when really it just means all of A is in the B group. It does not guarantee that if some (or most) of B is part of the C group, that that part of B has any A in it at all.

@EmmahFields I think it's most clear when you look at the sequence of conditionals: econ-trade → supp-pfp → bene-/war. Kingdoms that have an economy relying on trade will support foreign policies on peace, and if a kingdom supports foreign policies on peace, they benefit from no war.

The final sentence tells us Vale supports peace securing foreign policies. That status is in the middle of the three part conditional chain, supp-pfp, meaning when we follow the chain left to right, we can only conclude that it must also benefit from no war. Having an economy relying on trade (econ-trade) is just one reason a kingdom might value peace securing foreign policies, but it is not necessary to do so.

Maybe Vale does have an economy that relies on trade, but that is not a valid conclusion we can make given the information we have. Assuming so would mistake sufficiency for necessity, or going the wrong way in the chain. Hope this helps!

@jjsukkar this made me laugh and lightened today's study session mood. i am with you on that, my friend

@ImanMozaffarian I think what's helpful when the writing is unclear is to use context. I was also confused, so I used the last sentence 'Everyone knows such attacks will end after election day' to infer that the author is focusing on what voters think of the personal attacks, aka the thing most voters aren't paying attention to.