Top Law Schools

Not quite understanding these statements (how the conditional statements within each connect or don't connect).

Even if you can explain/tackle one I'd be more than grateful!

“A good apple is a ripe apple, and an apple will not be picked unless it is ripe.”

“Almost all flowers are pretty, and anything that is pretty is worth displaying in the home.”

“A wise person is never a talkative person, but every talkative person has something interesting to say.”

“Tall trees requires sunlight to survive. Tall trees get sunlight only when they are not blocked by other trees.”

Thank you!

G -> R
P -> R
No further inferences can be made.

F (M)-> P -> WD
Inference: F (M)-> WD, i.e., Most flowers are worth displaying in the home.
Note: "almost all" = most

W <-|-> T -> I
Inference: I <-(S)-> /W, i.e., Some who have something interesting to say are not wise.
Note: Knowing that T -> I allows you to infer that I <-(S)-> T, i.e., some I's are T's.

T -> S -> /B
Inference: T -> /B, i.e., If tall trees survive, then they are not blocked by other trees.

Good Apple --> Ripe Apple <-- Apple Picked

Flowers --Most--> Pretty --> Worth Displaying in the home

Wise --> ~Talkative < -- ~Something interesting to say

Survive --> Sunlight --> ~Blocked by other trees

By the way aren't these actual LSAT stimuli? If so you aren't allowed to post them.