Why isn't C correct?

I thought the same thing. I think that you cannot make that inference because the S&N and the quantifier statement do not share the same sufficient. Im guessing that you cant make the connection because the "some" who are not in favor of increased spending on refugees may not have permanent seats... My thinking is like this: Carrots---->Vegetables Not Vegetable----> Not Carrot Vegetables- some - not orange So from these we cannot assume and it wouldnt make sense to say this: Carrots- some - not orange Im not 100 percent but I believe this is our mistake in thinking.

Hi Krystina, Your reasoning is right! In this case, we are told that all permanent members are in favor of increased peacekeeping efforts. Additionally, we are told that some countries that are in favor of more peacekeeping are against more refugee spending. The "some" here indicates that at least one country who supports peacekeeping does not support more spending on refugees. However, "some" tells us nothing more than this. Lets look at a similar example. Lets say there are 100 senators. Of these 100 senators, 5 of them are in a leadership role, and if you are in a leadership role, then you must be a good fundraiser. Additionally, some senators who are good fundraisers oppose term limits. This means that at least one senator who is a good fundraiser opposes term limits. However, does that say anything about the five leaders? No. We only know that "some" of the fundraisers oppose term limits, not which ones, or how many. Likewise in this question, there are 5 countries we know support more peacekeeping, but there could be many more. We have no idea which of the countries who support peacekeeping also oppose more funding. While it is possible this is true of the countries on the security council, it is also possible that all five do in fact support funding refugees.