I've recently been working on Parallel Flaw questions and have realized that I am struggling with linking up conditional statements. When I am given a statement such as:

All dogs are happy. If you are happy, you will live a good life.

The presence of conditional indicators allows me to recognize that the statement above uses conditional logic. Beyond that, there is also a "link word" that allows for me to chain these two statements together. The "link word" is "happy."

However, I have started to come across stimuli that use conditional logic, but do not have an outright pronounced "link word." An example of this is PT32-Section4-Q21. The stimulus provides us with the following:

Premise 1:

Experimental psychology requires application of statistics

experimental psychology -----> application of statistics

Premise 2:

You can't understand such application without training

understand application -----> training

In the video explanation JY seemingly seamlessly uses logic to link together the two premises.

I am struggling to see how these two premies can be linked up. I thought application of statistics and understanding of statistics were two distinct ideas.

There have been a couple other questions where I have run into a similar issue. I think that for me there is a disconnect between the context of the sentence and the conditionality. I would really appreciate some insight regarding this particular question, and just a general idea of what I can do to get better with this gap in my understanding of conditionality.

Thanks in advance!