Consider the following statements.

$1.$ When I work a logic example without grumbling, you may be sure it is one I understand.

$2.$ The arguments in these examples are not arranged in regular order like the ones I am used to$.$

$3.$ No easy examples make my head ache.

$4.$ I can't understand examples if the arguments are not arranged in regular order like the ones I am used to$.$

$5.$ I never grumble at an example unless it gives me a headache.

$$ These examples are not easy.

Reorder the statements to explain how the conclusion follows as a valid consequence from the premises. As in Example $3\mathrm{.}4\mathrm{.}8,$ it is helpful to rewrite all of the statements in the form $$x$,$ if P$($x$)$ then Q$($x$)$ so that they can be easily chained together. In addition, replacing some of the premises by their contrapositives can make the connections easier to identify. $($This exercise is adapted from Symbolic Logic by Lewis Carroll.$)$

Explanation:

$2.$ The arguments in these examples are not arranged in regular order like the ones I am used to$.$

$---$Select$---$

$1.$ When I work a logic example without grumbling, you may be sure it is one I understand.

$5.$ If I grumble at an example, then it gives me a headache. $($contrapositive form$)$

$---$Select$---$

$$ These examples are not easy.