#feedback I don't like how he reverses the arrows every now and then. We were taught that you can't do that, and I understand that he's saying "look here, they reversed the arrows", but I would strongly prefer he presented the reversal as a separate chain underneath the other premises, so that the confusion of why he's reversing the arrows isn't present.

I managed to get this one right after 11 minutes of deliberating. I was able to sketch out using sets that the Principle was silent on the issue of whether or not foods outside the group of foods containing upsetting ingredients should be labeled or not. Since the application said that CC fell outside the foods that were potentially upsetting to most of their consumers, the chips should not be labeled, and thus fell in line with answer choice E.

I missed this one because I assumed that since C was the best answer for a NA question, I should choose a different answer.

#feedback how will you know when there is a missing rule to find?

Does the verb ever come into play in the diagrams? Like, for question one, I diagramed as:

JK -> /B or /R, should I just never include the verb in my diagrams? I feel like they tend to muddy my diagram

#feedback the whole subset/superset part of the lessons is a waste of time. If you were just going to introduce the classic arrow format anyway, why waste the time to establish an immediately useless method with the subsets?

Not sure how you couldn't just say, "well that's assuming he didn't pick up a dropped one, or steal a pass, or buy it from someone else

#feedback It's so lame that the presenter uses methods to manipulate the problem that aren't ever used in the lessons. What's the point then? So sub-par.

this answer is strange. It's literally the inverse of the first principle.

1) If /OF and /IRC → Preserve (Not modernize)

but

2? If OF and IRC → not Preserve (modernize)

AC D says: If OF and IRC → Modernize

Can you do the same thing you do with SC with disjunctive Or and negate them both because they're redundant? I feel like that doesn't make sense.

So odd.

I'm finding that these MBT questions that are kinda tough sometimes have answers that would be incredible for an NA question. I guess that makes sense though, if a statement is required for the argument to be true, then that statement also must be true.

.

#feedback I try not to be negative when I leave these comments, but my god, the presenter in this video is trying to hit some kind of word count. Just endless yapping, whole sections of the video about irrelevant tangents about hypothetical situations involving other question types.

#feedback I don't understand how the presenter formulated the lawgic here. If ep-weak then uneducated? What? Doesn't being "destined" imply a causation? How - in any way - does "destined" imply a sufficient condition?