Logic — Conditional Winning Statement Statements: • If all players play to their full potential, we will win the match. • We have won the match. Which conclusion(s) follow?

Introduction / Context:
This is a classic conditional reasoning problem. We have: If (all play to full potential) then (win). We also know the team won. What can we deduce about whether all played to full potential?

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Conditional: All_full_potential ⇒ Win.
• Fact: Win occurred.
• No biconditional is stated (i.e., “Win iff all_full_potential” is not given).

Concept / Approach:
From P ⇒ Q and Q, you cannot infer P. This is the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Winning could have resulted from other causes (opponent weakness, luck, strategy) even if some players did not reach full potential.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Construct scenarios: (1) All played great ⇒ win (fits). (2) Not all played great but still win (also fits). Both satisfy the premises, so neither conclusion is forced.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• I follows: commits affirming the consequent.
• II follows: asserts the negation without basis.
• Either / Both: mutually inconsistent and unsupported.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing “sufficient condition” with “necessary condition.”

Final Answer:
Neither I nor II follows