school has seven classrooms: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. The principal must choose five students, each from a different classroom, to perform in a special play. Any combination of five students will be appropriate, except if a student from classroom 1 is selected, then no one from class 5 may be chosen. Also, if a student from class 3 is selected, then someone from classroom 5 must also be selected. If someone from classroom 2 is in the play, then a student from classroom 6 must also be selected. Which combination of students meets all of the criteria?

A. If anything smells sweet, then it is a rose: This is the reverse of the original statement. The original statement only claims that roses smell sweet, not that all things that smell sweet are roses.

B. Roses smell sweet: This is the best interpretation of the statement. The original statement says, "If anything is a rose, then it smells sweet." This means roses, by definition, smell sweet. It is a direct implication of the original statement.

C. Things don't smell sweet unless they are roses: This is an incorrect interpretation. The original statement doesn’t claim that only roses smell sweet, just that if something is a rose, it will smell sweet. The reverse is not true.

D. One thing smells as sweet as a rose: This introduces a comparison that isn't part of the original statement. The original statement doesn't compare the sweetness of things; it just states that roses themselves smell sweet.

A. consider stoplights important: While it is reasonable to assume that police officers might consider stoplights important as part of maintaining the law, the original statement does not directly imply this. It focuses on the legality of running a stoplight rather than the officers' personal views.
B. believe it is illegal to run a stoplight: The statement implies that police officers enforce the law, but it doesn’t necessarily indicate what they believe. The focus is more on their role in maintaining the law rather than their personal belief about the law.
C. may issue a ticket if you run a stoplight: This is the best interpretation. Since the statement mentions that police officers maintain the law and that running a stoplight is illegal, it logically follows that police officers may take action, such as issuing a ticket, if someone violates this law.
D. never run stoplights: This is not a valid conclusion. The statement does not make any claims about the actions of police officers in relation to stoplights, only their role in enforcing the law. They may run stoplights, but they would be subject to the same legal consequences as anyone else.