Setup and Rule Diagrams

[g_lawyered]

Hi P.S.,
After reading JessRays posted question. I also think my set up wasn't helpful because I made an inference that I wasn't sure about. Because the variable P is repeated in the rules numerous times, I thought it was obvious to make an inference based on what flight P is connected with. Can someone guide me as to whether this inference is correct or incorrect to make?
I combined rules 4 and rule 2 to infer:
NOT PT NOT PH PV.

Thanks in advance!

[Robert Carroll]

G,

As to your first post, I think it involves a Mistaken Reversal. If M is connected to T, it doesn't have to be connected to H, so we don't get the problem there. This is why M could be connected to T.

As to your second post, it appears to involve a Mistaken Negation. If P is connected to T, it can't be connected to V. Nothing in that says that if P is NOT connected to T, it must be connected to V. That just seems to negate each term of the conditional without changing its order - a Mistaken Negation.

Robert Carroll

[g_lawyered]

Thanks to your explanation I see my conditional mistakes now. I think I tried to make chain inferences out of the conditional rules that is my problem. I'm struggling on which rules to combine to make inferences.
Thanks Robert