How would you translate this?

plutofireball21

Rosenberg cannot evaluate any introductory textbook until Juarez has evaluated that textbook? I would have guessed it would have been "until" so group three, so you negate sufficient so it would be R (intro book)--> J (intro book) but it is actually J intro book -> R intro book. Could someone please explain this?

MsM1998_

Not too sure about the conditional indicators but what I took from that sentence is that "if Juarez has evaluated an introductory textbook, then Rosenberg can evaluate the introductory textbook". I came up with this because the only way for Rosenberg to evaluate a book is if Juarez has evaluated it. Not too sure how else I can explain my reasoning, but yeah. I didn't pay so much attention to the indicator as much as making sense of the sentence.

Also to be clear, I haven't yet finished the CC myself, so someone else may be able to provide a better response.

JSL17824

@karina.shaw said:
Rosenberg cannot evaluate any introductory textbook until Juarez has evaluated that textbook? I would have guessed it would have been "until" so group three, so you negate sufficient so it would be R (intro book)--> J (intro book) but it is actually J intro book -> R intro book. Could someone please explain this?

If you mean the conditional relationship, i think you are right:
"Rosenberg cannot evaluate any introductory textbook(REIT)" until "Juarez has evaluated that textbook(JEIT)" = REIT until JEIT = REIT -> JEIT

Otherwise,
JEIT -> REIT = If Juarez has evaluated intro book, then Rosenberg evaluate that intro textbook. = Only if Rosenberg has evaluated the intro textbook, Juarez can evaluate that textbook.= Juarez cannot evaluate any introductory textbook until Rosenberg has evaluated that textbook.
=\= original statement.

Actually it reverses the conditional statement.

But, if it's a logic game in sequence, you know that (REIT -> JEIT) means only if JEIT, REIT, so it would be: JEIT － REIT