>If [RR] is dirty, Mueller must also be dirty.
Q said:
If [RR] is dirty, Mueller must also be dirty.
if Mueller is dirty, [RR] must also be dirty.
Q
This doesn't automatically mean that if RR is clean, or if Mueller is clean, the other one must be clean too.
Thre is no logical causation between Q's statement "if dirty, then" to conclusions about "if clean, then".
Q is only talking about "if dirty, then".
Q never talked about the opposite (being clean).
Therefore conclusions from Q's "if dirty, then" to "if not dirty, then" are not logically conclusive.