I'm having trouble interpreting "All A are only B".
At first, it seems like it's a redundant form of "All A are B". The conditional relation between A and B seems the same (if A then B). But when trying to put it into a Venn diagram or into standard-form syllogism, I have trouble.
A mother states a rule that "All kitchens are for eating". Her child dances in the kitchen. And so the rule strictly speaking hasn't been violated. But if the mother states "All kitchens are only for eating" and the child dances in the kitchen, are they breaking the rule? How would this look like in standard-form, or how could I diagram it?
Thanks in advance!