You are confusing sufficiency with necessity. "if you are more than 5 min, then you are cited as late" confuses the two.

Think of it like this: the ONLY way students are able to be cited as late is if they arrive more than 5 minutes late. Just because you arrive 5 minutes late does not mean you are automatically cited as late. it just gives you the possibility to be cited as late.

being cited as late is the sufficient condition and not the necessary as you put it above because it is not a guarantee that you will be cited as late. it just lays out the rule that you meet the condition to be cited as late. Hope this made sense.

You need to negate it to make it logically equivalent. so in logic it would look like /Y → /X. this would translate back to:

"If they DO NOT make a showing that the characteristic defining the case is an immutable trait, then the plaintiffs DO NOT qualify as a suspect class for the purpose of equal protection analysis".

Your example would not be logically equivalent because it confuses sufficiency for necessity.

B is relevant because it addresses an assumption that the argument makes.

97% of the constituents do not favor HIGH taxes. The Legislator says that her constituents will support the new bill which reduces corporate income tax. but we haven't established whether this corporate income tax is high or not.

We only know that the constituents oppose high taxes, we don't know how they feel about any other taxes. so we can't conclude that they would support this new bill to lower the corporate tax because we haven't established that it is a high tax. It could be a low tax, so then they may not support it being lowered.

B fills in this assumption, pointing out the fact that the constituents may or may not consider the corporate income tax high.

i got this question right, but am having a hard time figuring out how to chain these sentences. I usually chain it wrong. What lessons should I go back to to review and get better at this? #help