Contrapositives only apply to conditional statements. An existential statement like "some criminals are politicians" has no conditional, and thus no contrapositive.
I recommend changing the way you diagram existential statements. The "<->" symbol commonly denotes the biconditional, which is not part of the structure of a basic existential statement.
The standard way of diagramming an existential statement is something like "some(C & P)". The conjunction is appropriate because existential statements are symmetric, i.e. "some criminals are politicians" implies "some politicians are criminals".
@generationhar said: If you are Bob, then you are tall. If you are not tall, then you are not Bob.
This is not what "Bob is tall" is saying. Your conditional sentence can't even be expressed in quantifier-free predicate logics, whereas "Bob is tall" can be. This is because, in "Bob is tall", the relationship between Bob and tallness is one of predication, not implication -- "Bob is tall" isn't saying that a necessary condition for being Bob is that he's tall.
Consider also single predicate quantified sentences like "everything is red" or "something is green". Or sentences involving relations and functions, such as "2+2=4". None of these are expressed using conditionals.
@generationhar said: It's been translated into a conditional statement. It's valid, but its soundness is questionable.
This misuses of both "valid" and "sound". Valid sentences are logical truths, but "Bob is tall" is not a logical truth, and thus is not valid. Soundness applies to arguments, not sentences (there's also another type of soundness that applies to theories, but this doesn't apply to sentences either).
There is a conditional in this sentence. "All teachers are smart" can be expressed by something like "all(teacher → smart)". But this is a universal sentence, which is different from existential sentences, like "some teachers are smart", which don't involve conditionals.
Comments
The standard way of diagramming an existential statement is something like "some(C & P)". The conjunction is appropriate because existential statements are symmetric, i.e. "some criminals are politicians" implies "some politicians are criminals".
Consider also single predicate quantified sentences like "everything is red" or "something is green". Or sentences involving relations and functions, such as "2+2=4". None of these are expressed using conditionals. This misuses of both "valid" and "sound". Valid sentences are logical truths, but "Bob is tall" is not a logical truth, and thus is not valid. Soundness applies to arguments, not sentences (there's also another type of soundness that applies to theories, but this doesn't apply to sentences either). There is a conditional in this sentence. "All teachers are smart" can be expressed by something like "all(teacher → smart)". But this is a universal sentence, which is different from existential sentences, like "some teachers are smart", which don't involve conditionals.