i dont really see how this "exception" stuff is helpful. for example question 3. doesnt that just mean "if NOT producing popular opera, then receiving fund." which is /PopO->Fund. i dont think these new rules add more efficiency to what we already know how to do
i can't believe i got all these right... except i didnt really kick [When knowledge of the existence of a particular fact is an element of an offense] into the domain, and just used it as the sufficient condition to the rest of the embedded conditions
If you are trying to work on improving your time, these lessons seem like they will be helpful. I can imagine switching between rulesets based on the grammatical structure of the stimulus can save you time on thinking and diagramming.
When taking the contrapositive of a question with an exception, is the exception excluded from the flip and negate? In the video for question #2 the "/endanger" doesn't get negated in the original or in the contrapositive version.
@Summer Im so happy im not the only one. feels like im starting to tune out and everything that ive learned is beginning to collapse because when i see a simple prompt i overanalyze the crap out of it and freeze. especially since these prompts want me to dissect them in a particular way.
For question #1, would it be improper to just write it as "pandas proper --> drive out poachers?" Like in order for them to prosper, driving out the poachers is the necessary thing that needs to happen? I'm having a bit of trouble seeing when something needs to be separated into two things instead of left as one larger sentence...Like do we need to add another bit that specifies the pandas that were relocated here, or is what I'm doing some version of "kicking it up to the domain" by assuming that the pandas I wrote my condition about are the ones that relocated to this part of the forest? I got the same conditional here as the Rule/Except framework... #help
i dont know if this is helpful, but the way i read this that inclined me to separate into two things: "none of the pandas that relocated to this part of the forest will prosper" is a conditional statement in itself. i think i remember the loophole having a page where she translated a conditional with "none," i will try to find. in my head, i read this as: "if im a relocated panda -> i will not prosper."
i have that embedded conditional, and then i deal with the "unless" clause of this sentence.
i think if you want to keep it in just 1 SA side and 1 NA side, you would map it as: "-poach driven out-> (none of relocated pandas prosper)" or inverse "(some relocated pandas prosper)-> poachers driven out." in which i thought some ("not none") is the negation of none.
Aware exists + believe it does exists —> established
Th analysis said “doesn’t believe it doesn’t exist” wouldn’t the two negations cancel out? Or is not believing something doesn’t exist not the same as believing it does? It’s probably not the same, huh 🥹
417 comments
i dont really see how this "exception" stuff is helpful. for example question 3. doesnt that just mean "if NOT producing popular opera, then receiving fund." which is /PopO->Fund. i dont think these new rules add more efficiency to what we already know how to do
XLSAT coins lmaoooooooo nah
i can't believe i got all these right... except i didnt really kick [When knowledge of the existence of a particular fact is an element of an offense] into the domain, and just used it as the sufficient condition to the rest of the embedded conditions
can't believe i got #5 correct!
for question one could you also say /poachers -->relocated pandas prosper?
If you are trying to work on improving your time, these lessons seem like they will be helpful. I can imagine switching between rulesets based on the grammatical structure of the stimulus can save you time on thinking and diagramming.
Can Q5 be: Exception: believes it doesn't exist.
person aware of high probability and knowledge of the existence --> fact is an element of offense?
up until now i've treated embeddedd conditionals as one entity
so , A --> C in place of A --> (B --> C). It's worked for me.
Why is it important to break it down even more?
i'm just gonna return to this later...
Can Q4. be
50a + 10yrCO -> Support MF ?
When taking the contrapositive of a question with an exception, is the exception excluded from the flip and negate? In the video for question #2 the "/endanger" doesn't get negated in the original or in the contrapositive version.
im so lost on this, this feels so complicated. any advice/how do i get unlost?
@Summer I encourage you to skip and come back much later only if you need to. Don’t worry too much about this lesson.
@Kevin_Lin thank you!
@Summer Im so happy im not the only one. feels like im starting to tune out and everything that ive learned is beginning to collapse because when i see a simple prompt i overanalyze the crap out of it and freeze. especially since these prompts want me to dissect them in a particular way.
for #4, why isn't the fact that they have 10 years of sheltering not kicked up to the domain?
For question 1, is there a reason being a relocated panda can't be considered part of the domain?
Q. 4 can the domain be PAC with 50+ animals
Then,
rule: pet adoption center with at least ten years of continuous operations will be supported by MF
omg got #4 correct in under a few seconds. Light work. (I got the rest wrong)
For question number 2,
If I kick up 'sale of merchandise'
could the below conditional suffice:
/endanger --> /restrictions
@CaylaO I had something similar to this, however I think I realized I was breaking it down too far and making it unclear to read
For question #1, would it be improper to just write it as "pandas proper --> drive out poachers?" Like in order for them to prosper, driving out the poachers is the necessary thing that needs to happen? I'm having a bit of trouble seeing when something needs to be separated into two things instead of left as one larger sentence...Like do we need to add another bit that specifies the pandas that were relocated here, or is what I'm doing some version of "kicking it up to the domain" by assuming that the pandas I wrote my condition about are the ones that relocated to this part of the forest? I got the same conditional here as the Rule/Except framework... #help
@businessgoose businessgoose we meet again!!!
i dont know if this is helpful, but the way i read this that inclined me to separate into two things: "none of the pandas that relocated to this part of the forest will prosper" is a conditional statement in itself. i think i remember the loophole having a page where she translated a conditional with "none," i will try to find. in my head, i read this as: "if im a relocated panda -> i will not prosper."
i have that embedded conditional, and then i deal with the "unless" clause of this sentence.
i think if you want to keep it in just 1 SA side and 1 NA side, you would map it as: "-poach driven out-> (none of relocated pandas prosper)" or inverse "(some relocated pandas prosper)-> poachers driven out." in which i thought some ("not none") is the negation of none.
@justkeepswimming thank you dear friend!
Q4: Doesn't 'more than 50' mean 51+?
The answer states Shelter50+
Just a technicality I guess..
So, for Q5 I got
Aware exists + believe it does exists —> established
Th analysis said “doesn’t believe it doesn’t exist” wouldn’t the two negations cancel out? Or is not believing something doesn’t exist not the same as believing it does? It’s probably not the same, huh 🥹
The explanations were not satisfactory in this lesson, there was way too much theoritical explanation and little practical lawgic.
Can someone let me know if this is correct for q5:
WHEN knowledge of fact is an offense, such KoF is established IF a person is aware, UNLESS the person doesn't believe
Rule: KoF is established as an offense if a person is aware
R: Aware > KoF Est.
Exc: person doesn't believe
E: /believe
the way Q2 was being explained in the video was so confusing!!!! like omggggggggggggggg
why is #2 sale-merch → /restrict and not "/restrict→sale-merch" ?
I'm screwed
4 seems to be If A and B and C then D. 5 seems to be If A and B and C and not D then E. There is no way to reduce the complexity.