Q1 - Roses always provide a stunning

[theanswer21324]

Got this correct but was hoping that someone could spell out the formal logic for future reference. Thanks

Here's what I have

R --> SDC

WGG --> SS

Therefore, Some R --> ~SS

[rinagoldfield]

Hey theanswer21324,

Nice work on the conditional logic. However, note that there’s no "therefore" in the stimulus since the stimulus doesn’t offer any conclusion. We’re just given three pieces of information.
These three pieces are:

R-->SDC
WG-->SS
Some R ~SS

Our job is to draw a conclusion

(A) Is a good conclusion. The roses that don’t smell sweet will offer a stunning display of color, but won’t be worth growing (because they don't smell sweet!).
(B) Mixes up various pieces of information from the stimulus in bad ways.
(C) Contradicts the premise that only flowers that smell sweet are worth growing.
(D) Reverses and semi-negates the WGSS premise.
(E) Erroneously links the worth-growing and stunning-color premises.

Hope that helps.