No one ?

I am so confused by how you merged the contrpostive and positve statement to come up with a transitive property statement for the stumulus of this question - atleast it's now how it's explained in the previous examples/questions. My understanding (based on previous explanations), was that, you can have a positive transitive statement as well as a contrapositive transitive statement but not merge the two to have one statement. This has been so confusing

@melissakaijukags remember, the contrapositive is identical in meaning so there is nothing stopping you from using a contrapositive to create a transitive chain. For example, P1: A ==> B P2: not C ==> not B We can create the following transitive chain from P1 and the contrapositive of P2: A ==> B ==> C Does that make sense?

Thank you for that explanation above. I understand it. However I do not understand why question B was diagramed like this: P-> AB. Why wouldn't that premise be diagramed as you have demonstrated above: P -> not AB. Thank you.