I just don't get it

@Genadel thanks for your message. Let's take a closer look at the stimulus here. Premise: "In the Riverview Building, every apartment that has a balcony also has a fireplace." B ==> F not F ==> not B Premise: "None of the apartments with balconies is a one-bedroom apartment." B ==> not 1BR 1BR ==> not B Conclusion: "So none of the one-bedroom apartments has a fireplace." 1BR ==> not F F ==> not 1BR Notice the flaw here. We know that one-bedrooms do not have balconies, i.e. 1BR ==> not B. Not having a balcony, however, is necessary to not having a fireplace, i.e. not F ==> not B. The argument is clearly mistaking necessary for sufficient here, i.e. not B ==> not F, to then conclude that "none of the one-bedroom apartments has a fireplace." 1BR ==> not B ==> not F Let's take a look at (C) now: "no dog has fur since every cat has fur and no cat is a dog" Premise: "every cat has fur" C ==> F not F ==> not C Premise: "no cat is a dog" C ==> not D D ==> not C Conclusion: "no dog has fur" D ==> not F F ==> not D This is the exact same flaw. We know that no dogs are cats, i.e. D ==> not C. But not being a cat is necessary to not having fur, i.e. not F ==> not C. So the argument here is once again mistaking necessary for sufficient, i.e. not C ==> not F. D ==> not C ==> not F Therefore, (C) would be the correct answer. Hope that helps! Please let us know if you have any other questions.