I was blown away too with this question. Didn't attempt to solve in time. Would love to have feedback on the following thought process
Bunuel VeritasKarishma :
Question:
Premise 1 (P1): no one teaches > 1 intro class
Premise 2 (P2): only language class = advanced
Conclusion (C): both class by Prof. XYZ will be intro. is false [in other words: both class by Prof XYZ will not be intro]
here, both P1 and p2 are sufficient independently to draw conclusion.
Same pattern exists only in answer D.
A) P1: Morris. Building fully occupied by May
P2: If building occupied by May = new tax
C: Morris Building
new tax rate
[ both premise combined can help draw conclusion]
B) P1: Revised tax code Not applicable to building < 1900
P2: 1st section applicable to building between 1900-1920
C: Norton building (1873) - revised code NA
[ 1st premise alone can help derive conclusion]
c) P1: All property on O. Road - tax reassessed
P2: Elnor HQ on O. Road
C: ELnor's tax higher
[ conclusion only possible by combined P1 and P2, however I'm not sure of higher tax = tax reassessed] suggest plz.
d) P1: New building with public spaces = no taxes for 2 yrs
P2: All new building in alton district - no taxes for 5 yrs
C : building (with large public space) in alton = no tax next year
[ Correct: both p1 and p2 are sufficient independently to draw conclusion hence correct]
e) P1: building with no tax = water
Special rate
P2: hospital has no tax
C: F. hospital = water
Special rate
[ P1 sufficient for conclusion ]