It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
M → F
/J → /M
/M
I took the contrapositive of M > F which got me /F > /M
Then I inferred that /F or /J would net me /M. Which means that the arrows can split in the sufficient condition.
Which means the sufficient assumption for /M would either be to negate F (/F), or to make it that /F > /J (/F > /J > /M)
Is this correct? Or am I missing some other possible sufficient assumption.