Top Law Schools

There is an example regarding false block inferences that can be made from statements such as the following example:

Each rock classic is immediately preceded on the CD by a new composition.

Just as the book noted, in a most mocking fashion, the inference of NR is not correct, rather the statement is to be interpreted correctly as:

If rock classic, then rock classic preceded by new composition.


Does the Each language in the sufficient clause cause such a subtle change, or am I just be obtuse at the moment?

I don't think it's the "each" so much as the fact that it doesn't say that all NCs are followed by RCs. Hence, you could have an NC not followed by an RC, but you could not have an RC that is not preceded by an NC. The "each" just makes it so you could have multiple RCs (that must all be preceded by NCs), whereas if they instead said "A rock classic is..." then you could theoretically have one RC preceded by an NC and a second RC that is not.