Weight-ordering logic: Rover weighs less than Fido, and Rover weighs more than Boomer; determine whether the conclusion "Of the three dogs, Boomer weighs the least" must logically follow from the two given premises.

Given data

• Premise 1: Rover < Fido.
• Premise 2: Rover > Boomer.
• Claim: Boomer is the lightest of the three (i.e., Boomer < Rover and Boomer < Fido).

Concept / Approach
Chain the inequalities to find a strict ordering.

Step-by-step reasoning
Step 1: From Premise 2, Boomer < Rover.Step 2: From Premise 1, Rover < Fido.Step 3: Combine the two: Boomer < Rover < Fido. This establishes a strict ascending order of weights.Step 4: Therefore Boomer is lighter than Rover and also lighter than Fido, so Boomer is the least.

Verification / Alternative view
Any numeric assignment respecting the premises (e.g., Boomer=10, Rover=12, Fido=14) makes the conclusion true. There is no counterexample consistent with the premises.

Common pitfalls

• Overthinking ties: the strict inequalities ("less than", "more than") already exclude equality.

Final Answer
Definitely true.