It is not, as illustrated below by an example that conforms to those principles:
AB
AB
ABC
B
BC
This conforms to A --> B some C, yet it is not valid to say A --> C since it may not be the case that the Bs that are As also have Cs.
0
You've discovered a premium feature!
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Hold on there, you need to slow down.
We love that you want post in our discussion forum! Just come back in a bit to post again!
Subscribers can learn all the LSAT secrets.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.
It is not, as illustrated below by an example that conforms to those principles:
AB
AB
ABC
B
BC
This conforms to A --> B some C, yet it is not valid to say A --> C since it may not be the case that the Bs that are As also have Cs.