This is the way I diagrammed it:
We are told that Investment is not Decreasing, which means
ID. Via the contrapositive, we know ID--> EW.
Therefore, (A) must be FALSE since we know investment is NOT decreasing (says so right in the stimulus) and the economy is NOT weak (via the contrapositive).
Ah that makes sense. I've been thinking it over and I think I'm sort of getting it...can you guys help me see whether I'm thinking this through correctly?
I diagrammed it like you as well but if you do the contrapositive you get this:
-ID --> -UR, -EW, -PC or -UR
(B) -- I didn't cross this off because it sounded like it's false. However now I'm seeing that it's not necessarily false; we don't know enough whether it must be true, but it could
be true, so it's crossed off.
(C) This is straight from the diagram, EW -> ID. It must be true so it's crossed off.
(D) This is what threw me off initially also. The first part is false (because economy is not weak, from the contrapositive). However, it's either prices are not constant (-PC) OR unemployment is not rising (-UR). Because it's not necessarily false that prices are constant -- it could be true that prices are constant, but unemployment is not rising (-UR) so it'd still be logically correct -- then it could be true, so it's crossed off.
(E) We know unemployment is not rising from the contrapositive of UR -> ID, so the first part of the answer is false. However it's true that economy is not weak (contra of EW --> ID; -ID -> -EW), so the latter part of this answer is true, so it could be true, so it's crossed off.
And like you said, for (A) it has to be false because both parts are false. (-EW from the contrapositive of EW --> ID, -ID from the premise).
Is that reasoning sound?