One can be at home and be in the backyard, that is, not in

Bumping up this thread for more participation

i'll go with E

I 'll go with C

anyone else .....

D for me.

What's the OA? Neone?

A = One being at home
B = One being inside one's house

Claim states that A can happen with or without B

Conclusion states that A is not required for B to be true.

To me the claim is just a rewording of the conclusion. Because if the conclusion is true, then the claim is true. If the conclusion is false, then B => A negating the claim.

C would be my choice.

We can also eliminate the other choices:

A is false because the claim is not necessary at all to make the conclusion, it is just a rephrased conclusion.

B is clearly false

D is false because, there is no word-play here

E is also false

AJB, I have a couple of follow up questions:

You say that A can happen with or without B

From the passage content (1st line) we know that A can happen without B. However nothing is said about A can happen with B correct?

All we know is

A is not dependant on B
B is not dependant on A.

I just want to make sure that i havent missed anything.

If the conclusion is negated, then we get A is required for B. If this were true, then like you said it contradicts the B !=> A paradigm. But the question just asks about the claim "one can be at home without being in one's house" [A !=> B]. So how is the claim compatible with the falsity of the conclusion? The claim has no effect on the 'falsity" on the conclusion. Ergo its "compatible"? Is that what AC C is saying?

BTW the OA is C. So you've nailed it.

See, to be honest, I was not 100% sure of C, but I figured with confidence that the rest were definitely wrong and chose C, even if I was a bit shaky. Once I chose C, I tried to make an argument for it.

To me "X is compatible with truth and falsity of Y" means that (If Y -> X AND IF ~Y -> ~X)

X = "One's being at home is not required for one's being in one's own house."

~X = "One's being at home is required for one's being in one's own house." which NEGATES the claim "One can be at home and not be in one's house at all"