If the investigation continues, then new evidence is brought to light. If new evidence is brought to light, then several leading citizens are implicated. If several leading citizens are implicated, then the newspapers stop publishing the case. If continuation of the investigation implies that the newspaper stop publicizing the case, then the bringing to light of new evidence implies that the investigation continues. The investigation does not continue. Therefore, new evidence is not brought to light. (C: The investigation continues. N: New evidence is brought to light. I: Several leading citizens are implicated. S: The newspapers stop publishing the case.)

Explanation:

The Conditional reasoning and logical equivalence of the statements could read;

1. If the investigation continues, then new evidence is brought to light.

C ⇒ N

2. If new evidence is brought to light, then several leading citizens are implicated.

N ⇒ I

3. If several leading citizens are implicated, then the newspapers stop publishing the case.

I ⇒ S

4. If continuation of the investigation implies that the newspaper stop publicizing the case, then the bringing to light of new evidence implies that the investigation continues.

C ⇒ S: ⇒ N ⇒ C

5. The investigation does not continue. Therefore, new evidence is not brought to light.

not C ⇒ not N

22.83 repeating

step-by-step explanation:

137 ÷ 6 is 22.8333333 therefore we understand that 3 is repeating.

happy to

pls mark as brainliest