- Posts: 30
- Joined: Mar 08, 2019
- Wed May 26, 2021 12:25 am
#87352
I can see that Ryan's explanation is the definitive one, but I wanted to throw in my two cents re the other way to translate "without" in Justify SN questions, which mirrors the original Administrator explanation. This involves negating the Sufficient term:
IF > SI (A>B)
PGL > SI (E>B) This is the superfluous premise
IF > ROL (A>C)
Choice B gives us the B>C :
SI > ROL (B>C)
so we get IF > SI > ROL (A>B>C)
that's my "Kids are People Too" version......hope it helps
IF > SI (A>B)
PGL > SI (E>B) This is the superfluous premise
IF > ROL (A>C)
Choice B gives us the B>C :
SI > ROL (B>C)
so we get IF > SI > ROL (A>B>C)
that's my "Kids are People Too" version......hope it helps