­A park contains at most five of seven kinds of trees - firs, laurels

Because if Maples are in the park Yews aren’t, per condition 1. And, since Yews are NOT in the park then either Laurels or Oaks NEED to be in the park, per condition 3.
Therefore, Option A can be eliminated, as it isn’t representative of the accurate list of trees.

Posted from my mobile device

­A park contains at most five of seven kinds of trees - firs, laurels, maples, oaks, pines, spruces, and yews - consistent with the following conditions:

If maples are in the park, yews are not.

If firs are in the park, pines are not.

If yews are not in the park, then either laurels or oaks, but not both are in the park.

If it is not the case that the park contains both laurels and oaks, then it contains firs and spruces.

Which one of the following could be a complete and accurate list of the kinds of trees in the park?

(A) firs, maples

(B) firs, laurels, oaks

(C) firs, laurels, pines, spruces

(D) firs, laurels, spruces, yews

(E) firs, maples, oaks, spruces, yews

From passage:
M ----> nY ----> L/O ----> F(F ----> nP) and S 

A and D stand out but here A does not cover the other trees, hence out.

Answer D.

­agree with your explanation but what about yews.
I dont understand how it fits there?

A shouldn’t be an option here I think the answer A should be modified as there is no way to eliminate both A and D

­A is not the right answer.

'If yews are not in the park, then either laurels or oaks, but not both are in the park.'

There are no yews in option A, but neither are there laurels or oaks. Therefore, A can be eliminated.

If maples are in the park, yews are not.
If firs are in the park, pines are not.
If yews are not in the park, then either laurels or oaks, but not both are in the park.
If it is not the case that the park contains both laurels and oaks, then it contains firs and spruces.­

In the above condition the 4th one makes sense.
Now either L or O is there, we can take either. Given the option L is there so we take it.
Further what might be possible?
Neither 1st nor 2nd condition is fulfilled becasue if both L and O are not there then Y is there and hence M is not in the park.
Understand the 3rd condition well to crack this one.

It means that Y can be there if O is there.
Y can be there if L is there.
Y is not there if both L and O are not there.

Note: It is bit confusing for me since contradiction did arise for me. There are many versions of this question and in all of them the confusion remains. I chose to go with D because it made more sense POE-wise.

HTHs.

­Hi KarishmaB
What would be the contrapositive of 'If yews are not in the park, then either laurels or oaks, but not both are in the park'?
While I read the conditions, I simultaneously write the contrapositives to get more clarity on the possibilities. I rephrased this statement to-
If both L and O ----> Y
Or If not the case that case only L nor only O ----> Y
This doesnt fit with D :/
Look forward to your explanation

­
'If yews are not in the park, then either laurels or oaks, but not both are in the park'

If A, then B

A - yews are not in the park
B - either laurels or oaks, but not both are in the park
Negated A - yews are in the park
Negated B - Either both laurels and oaks or neither is in the park

Here, A implies B
and B' implies A'

So the following are implied:
If yews are not in the park, then either laurels or oaks, but not both are in the park.
If either both laurels and oaks are in the park or neither is in the park, then yews are in the park.


The following are not implied:

B does not imly anything
A' does not imply anything

If either laurels or oaks, but not both are in the park, then nothing about yews is implied. Yews may be may not be in the park.
If yews are in the park, then nothing about laurels and oaks are implied. They may be, may not be, both may be, both may not be in the park.

​​​​​​​Conditionals: https://youtu.be/MmlwcTlHZz8