Valid Argument #6 is messing me up

The 180 Bro_OVO

Here's what JY says:

All turtles know kung fu. All turtles are named after Italian artists. Therefore, some things that know kung fu are named after Italian artists.
[Lawgic]
A –> B
A –> C
_______________
B some C

I assume that would look like:
C
C
ABC
ABC
ABC
B
B
that makes sense.

Next Part:
An often overlooked corollary to this valid form is the following:

A –> C
B –> C
_______________
/A some /B



I assume that would look like:
/A
/A
/C/A/B
/C/A/B
/B
/B

Question:
I'm having trouble thinking of this in a sentence that actually makes sense/one that might appear on the test. help please?

iiiSpoon

If you are not a fruit, you are not an orange. If you are not a fruit, you are not an apple. Some things that are not oranges are not apples, ie Darth Vader.

kclubs323

@"The 180 Bro"
So the corollary is definitely the tricky part.

A ---> C
B ----> C
---------------------
/A some /B

To represent this in English, you would say,
"Some things that aren't A are also not B."

Let's use the ninja turtles metaphor to substitute:
A = ninja turtles
B = Italian artists
C = kung fu

A ---> C (all ninja turtles know kung fu)
B ---> C (all italian artists know kung fu)
----------------------
/A some /B ("some things that ARE NOT ninja turtles, ARE ALSO NOT italian artists").

So this corollary is essentially referring to whatever is OUTSIDE the intersection of ABC which you mentioned first:

A ---> B
A ---> C
-----------------
B some C

I'm going to use { } to represent intersection relationships.

{some B's} {all A's, some B's, some C's} {some C's}

The corollary is merely describing whatever is NOT in those { } brackets.

As for how it might appear on the test, I'm not entirely too certain. This seems like something that would appear in a Sufficient Assumption/Pseudo-Sufficient Assumption, so maybe it would help you to go over those particular lessons in the course. Sorry if this wasn't much help.

Good luck!