Please explain B

“Presumes, without providing justification” The argument assumes “If certain events each predict a certain result,” If F or M —-> S “Then no other event is sufficient to produce that result.” If not F & not M —-> not S If S —- F or M S exists. Not M exists. C: T —-> F

Hi @Ellen, Sure, thanks for the question. (B) is saying that the argument assumes that if certain events each produce a particular result, then no others are sufficient to produce that result. If you want to diagram B: Certain events each produce a certain result - > ~Another event can produce that result In the context of this question, the two events in question are not appearing on time for a quarterly board meeting and missing two of the monthly general meetings. The author concludes that Thibodeaux didn't show up on time for a quarterly board meeting, since he's never missed a monthly general meeting. But this is only one of the bylaws; another bylaw might have other provisions for suspension, such as if an officer shows up drunk to a meeting. This would be an example of another event that would produce "that result," which is suspension. In other words, we're given Miss meeting or late - > Suspension But the author concludes Suspension - > Miss meeting or late Which confuses the sufficient and necessary terms. Hope this helps!