Help needed on the diagramming of the original question

Hi Samlhoover, thanks for the question! The passage can be diagrammed as follows: Meet sales quota - > Experienced salesperson NOT meet sales quota - > NOT experienced salesperson (Note how the word "must" is used to introduce the necessary condition) In essence, this argument is doing the following: Reasoning: A - > B Conclusion: NOT A - > NOT B This is not a valid conclusion from the reasoning. The only thing other than A - > B that we can conclude from A - > B is NOT B - > NOT A (the contrapositive). So let's look for an answer choice that makes a similar error of just negating the conditional statement without reversing it as well. Answer choice B does exactly that. Reasoning: Take class - > Music lover Conclusion: NOT take class - > NOT music lover I hope this helps. Please let me know if you have any other questions!

Hi Samlhoover, thanks for the question! The passage can be diagrammed as follows: Meet sales quota - > Experienced salesperson NOT meet sales quota - > NOT experienced salesperson (Note how the word "must" is used to introduce the necessary condition) In essence, this argument is doing the following: Reasoning: A - > B Conclusion: NOT A - > NOT B This is not a valid conclusion from the reasoning. The only thing other than A - > B that we can conclude from A - > B is NOT B - > NOT A (the contrapositive). So let's look for an answer choice that makes a similar error of just negating the conditional statement without reversing it as well. Answer choice B does exactly that. Reasoning: Take class - > Music lover Conclusion: NOT take class - > NOT music lover I hope this helps. Please let me know if you have any other questions!

Sorry for the double post!