#help

Is there a way to solve this question by translating it into logic?

I had a lot of trouble with figuring out exactly why E was wrong, and JY's explanation didn't make sense to me. He mentioned that sterilizing and sealing is a subset of an acceptable method, but we don't know that sterilizing and sealing "goes over to an acceptable method"; therefore, E is wrong.

I believe the reason why E is wrong lies in the first sentence. The first sentence states "Any food that is not [sterilized and sealed] CAN contain disease-causing bacteria." That does not mean it must contain disease-causing bacteria. It could be the case that a certain food is not sterilized or sealed yet it does not contain disease-causing bacteria. They way this would translate into logic is as follows:

CDCB=contains disease-causing bacteria

/sterilized OR /Sealed→ CDCB OR /CDCB

To reiterate what was stated above, if a food is not sterilized or not sealed, it may contain disease-causing bacteria, or it may not contain disease-causing bacteria.

Coming to answer choice E, we see it states if a food has no bacteria, then it has been preserved by an acceptable method. This answer is talking about food that does not contain bacteria at all, which means the food also does not contain disease-causing bacteria (/CDCB).

Pushing this up against the logical statement above, we see that /CDCB is simply affirming a necessary condition, and from basic logic lessons, we cannot conclude anything by affirming the necessary condition.

/sterilized OR /Sealed→ CDCB OR /CDCB

By stating /CDBC, we do not know anything about whether or not the food was sterilized or sealed.

Also, the statement above does not really have a contrapositive. If you run the contrapositive, you get a contradiction:

[CDBC AND /CDBC]→sterilized AND sealed

This contrapositive is a contradiction because you cannot both contain something and not contain it at the same time. You cannot contain and not contain disease-causing bacteria, so the contrapositive would not work here.

#help

Answer choice A requires us to assume that loitering or harassment is illegal under "current law". Is this a reasonable assumption that we are allowed to make? Kendra makes no mention of what is allowed or not allowed under "current law". How can just assume what is and is not legal for the law that governs the area where Gerald and Kendra reside?

Yes, Please. Im In!

Just to add, another possibility would be to work as a legal advisor for companies abroad that conduct business in the US. So you would be able to use your knowledge of law from the US to work with those companies in guiding them, but you may not be able to use your degree to work within the judicial system of that country without first completing the requirements to practice law in that country.

Some NA assumptions are very easy and quick to solve if you recognize the gap in the argument. In this argument, the gap was between the concepts of having free will and desiring to conform to a principle. The only answer choice that even mentions both is B.

#help

Would answer choice E work if this were a weakening question instead of a flaw/descriptive weakening?