I think there might be a spelling error that tripped me up. is it supposed to be "that's between"because that between sounds wrong or incomplete. #feedback #help

In question 1, the explanation for confusing sufficiency for necessity only highlights one of the two clauses. However, I do not understand why. If we have to make both clauses the necessary condition when we do the Negate Sufficient translation rule then how do you identify in the end which one triggers the necessary condition. By the logic of Negate Sufficient, couldnt both be considered the necessary conditions?

#help

I wish you could give a better explanation for D. #feedback

How would you translate one of the "inclusive or" sentences using the group 3 negate sufficient translation rule? Or do we not translate it. I am confused as to what we have to do here. I like the clarification for the different types of "or", but I am unsure as to why it was paired up with the Group 3 indicators.

Jon must take econ 101 or poli sci 101 this semester

#help

Thank you for reaffirming my thoughts about this passage lol

Not sure why openly and notoriously are bundled up together if they have a conjunction indicator in between them. It seems like they would be separate. I guess that since they are in the sufficient condition it does not matter as much as if they were in the necessary condition, where they would have needed to be independently necessary.

#feedback #help

#feedback please start putting the ACs in the video from the beginning. Or else we are losing a critical half of the learning experience with these questions.

Rest in Paradise

Hey guys, I do not understand how new restaurants opening is a sufficient condition. I can see how living standards improving is a necessary condition because it would not happen without a catalyst being the opening of new restaurants. But I would say that new restaurants opening could also be necessary condition for the relationship to even exist. #help #please

I should probably review the lesson about quantifiers and mapping them out in lawgic.

Anyway, can someone please explain why this premise is mapped out like this:

friend —m→ feel-comfy-appro

I would've thought that the "because" was a sufficient indicator. Very confused.

In the first example:

Tom had been struggling with a chronic illness. But after the prolonged adjustment to his new medication, he started to show signs of improvement. His friend Sarah visited him and noticed a positive change in his demeanor. She excitedly shared with others, "Tom is feeling better today!"

I think it would be more strongly inferred that he is feeling better today than when he was not on the medication. This is considering the part that states "prolonged adjustment", however I could see how it could also be that he is feeling better than yesterday. Anyone care to pitch in/clarify #help

My biggest question with this is with the contrapositive statements of these examples. If you saw the contrapositive of one of these only if/only when/etc. how could you determine the validity of the inference.

Take the simple example of Democracy exists only with citizen participation.

here if someone makes the inference: America did not allow women to vote in 1912, then it was not a democracy.

Here you can say this it not a valid inference since men could still vote and in every other aspect it was considered a democracy.

But when you use the contrapositive: If citizens do not participate then a democracy cannot exist.

here if you apply the same statement: America did not allow women to vote in 1912, then it was not a democracy. with the contrapositive I would say the inference could be valid.

Please #help

I'd appreciate if we have more explanation on these #feedback

Hmmmm...I am not sure why changing the wording more unpleasant changes the winner to B. If the quality is which tastes more unpleasant then A would still be the winner, right? I feel that just by making the quality negative does not change the winner of the characteristic. Anyone feel free to jump in on this #help

I know you always say that the indicator lists are not exhaustive, but in this case since you did not specify, would it be the case that this list is exhaustive? #help

#help Not sure, if I did not catch it before, but how come the chart shows that the subject can sometimes contain a verb, I thought the whole point of the subject was that it was strictly nouns. Let me know if anyone know the answer to this or there a was a mistake made on the chart.

What does PSG/Game/S Difficulty mean

Not sure if you meant to say that poetry is more like music than it is like painting, because the questions says you must take the statements as true. In the statement it says poetry must be performed, and also says that though seemingly a visual art it is has more in common to temporal art forms.

Medieval monasteries never print books using offset printing.

I am wondering why this sentence was not translated as such:

If it is a book printed by a medieval monastery then it was not printed using offset printing

If a book was printed using offset printing, then it was not printed by a medieval monastery

I am thinking "it", in the way the translated the sentence refers to something else that was referenced earlier in the passage or example that we do not know about. Could someone let me know what they think.

#help #please

Based on this, if we were to include one of the two assumptions as premises, then, the better assumption should not be included and the worse assumption should be included. This would make the argument more solid, because the only assumption is fairly obvious, and the weaker assumption is included as a premise.

Can someone provide more examples of how subjects can sometimes contain verbs. I feel you can easily confuse them for a predicate verb.

Thank you!

#help (Added by Admin)

If you wanted to make the first sentence a conditional in logic, how would you do it?

phoenix→/cartwright?

or /cartright→phoenix?

I have a feeling it is the second, but can anyone confirm?

pls #help

Another reason why I noticed D was wrong is that the conclusion states that the size of the nucleus determines whether or not male cats can contract disease X. In D, 5 dead cats had a large interstitial nuclei, but could have died before they could contract disease X. It is possible that they died of other reasons but had a nuclei big enough to contract disease X, they just didn't get around to it. So it is in line with the argument.

#feedback #help When JY says he doesn't care about an answer choice, it would be nice if he could explain his reasoning. For instance, C mentions both influence and neural connections just like E. Why is C wrong?

#help

Hello, can you provide a link to the lesson(s) that show us how to understand the following better:

I am having trouble with understanding why JY translated the premise regarding Samantha as Sam (M)→ /finger and /foot

I get that "avoided" means you negate both foot and finger but why do you change the sign to "and" rather than "or". Following demorgan's law wouldn't you also have to switch sides to the sufficient assumption