"the hypothesis thatSandactylus flew by flapping its wings , not just by gliding"
E already supports this conclusion. In other words, negating E would not break the above hypothesis.
The argument in propositional logic:
P1. For all Bats, BV (Blood Vessels) -> Dissipate Heat
P2. For all Bats, Heat -> Flap Wing
Hypothesis: Sandactylus, BV, Flap Wing?
From P1 & P2 and using transitive inference,
For all Bats, BV -> Flap Wing
For above to work for Sandactylus too, we need:
P1S.
...
E already supports this conclusion. In other words, negating E would not break the above hypothesis.
The argument in propositional logic:
P1. For all Bats, BV (Blood Vessels) -> Dissipate Heat
P2. For all Bats, Heat -> Flap Wing
Hypothesis: Sandactylus, BV, Flap Wing?
From P1 & P2 and using transitive inference,
For all Bats, BV -> Flap Wing
For above to work for Sandactylus too, we need:
P1S.
...







.jpg)

