In lecture, we spent significant time translating statements from English into first-order logic. In this problem, we'd like you to show us what you've learned about the art of first-order translation. Here are some predicates for categorizing personalities: . Lawful(x), which states that c is Lawful; . Chaotic(r), which states that r is Chaotic; . Good(c), which states that r is a force for Good; . (to express the idea that a is a force for Evil, write -Good(r)); . Conquers(r, y), which states that r conquers y. Remember, you should not assume you know anything about these predicates apart from how they are defined above and what the rules of first-order logic dictate (for example, don't make assumptions about whether categories can overlap or not based on your own understanding of Lawful/Chaotic internet memes). For each of the following pairs of statements (some in English, some in first-order logic), state whether the statements are equivalent to each other, the negation of each other, or neither equivalent nor the negation of each other. Respond by writing one of these words in the shaded box: "Equivalent," "Negation," or "Neither." i. Are these two propositions equivalent to each other, negations of each other, or neither? . Vr.(Good(z) - Vy.(-Good(y) - Conquers(y, x))) . "All evil things conquer all good things." (Write here)