#### Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

# PT. 22 Section 2 Question 22

Alum Member
in General 149 karma
Clearly I'm having a hard time mapping out logic... Can someone please explain the correct answer? Also any tips on how to improve mapping out logic would be greatly appreciated!! Thanks!
Show Related Discussions

• #### PrepTest 16 - Section 3 - Question 22 (Most Difficult)Evidence -> Not Guilt but now Evidence --> Guilt Evidence must have changed. A = B now A = not B A has changed. (Answer B): Train = not…

• Free Trial Inactive Sage Inactive ⭐
2398 karma
Let's begin by diagramming the statement that the author believes to be absurd: if gov refuses to support then it does not allow" This can be diagrammed as: /GS-->/A.

How does the author show this is absurd? By rewording the relationship: A-->GS
(you may be able to form an argument that government subsidy and government support are different things, but I am taking them to be synonymous in this instance in order to keep the variables consistent). Thus, the author is rewording the initial statement in the form of its contrapositive.

So, our job is to look for a statement that is simply reworded into its contrapositive. This occurs in answer choice A.

/arrested-->/BL
reworded: BL-->Arrested

The contrapositive! We win!

Hope this helps!