Hello, dpb!

We're expected to know that: . is equivalent to

Find a logically equivalent proposition for:

. .

by first writing its contrapositive, and then applying DeMorgan's law

and the equality for

They were trying to be helpful by outlining the steps we should follow,

. . but I think they made it more confusing.

I don't see the purpose of using the contrapositive here.

. . I wouldn't have done it that way.

Besides, the statement is a tautology . . .

Contrapositive: .

which gives us: .

And this is a tautology: "a thing implies itself" ... which is always true.

I don't know of any "logically equivalent proposition" we can write . . .