It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Is the reasoning flaw in the stimulus that it concludes what makes something not censorship from the sufficient condition for censorship?
If A or B, then Censorship exists.
From this, we cannot conclude that censorship does not exist.
Similarly, in (D),
If A, then heroic.
From this, we cannot conclude what's not heroic. A is a sufficient condition for being heroic, not its necessary condition. If it were the necessary condition, we have a way of concluing that something is NOT heroic. Is this all there is to see in this question?