LR workbook page

[Fish]

In the workbook I just finished the Justify section and number 4 asks "If Carlos attends the meeting, then Hiroshi attends the meeting."

The correct answer was as that Hiroshi does not attend the meeting.

I thought the correct answer would be that Hiroshi may or may not attend the meeting.

This is my thinking:
Just because Carlos isn't there doesn't mean that Hiroshi can't go. However, if Hiroshi were not there, then that would mean that Carlos is not there.

Perhaps you can give me a different way of thinking about this question.

Thanks so much!

[Steve Stein]

For that drill you are asked to supply the missing element that allows the given conclusion to be drawn. What premise allows us to conclude that Carlos does not attend the meeting? As you said, if Hiroshi does not attend, then we can conclude that Carlos does not attend. Therefore the statement "Hiroshi does not attend the meeting" justifies the conclusion that Carlos thus does not attend.

Let me know if this makes sense--thanks!

~Steve

[Fish]

yes- that is helpful - thanks