@Kevin Lin yes -- at my laptop lol

Are these all interchangeable? Do we need to understand how to do all three of them? Seems like 1 and 3 are most intuitive to me...

I'm getting really stuck with group 4 negate, necessary conditionals. For question four how do we get Invited > RSVP? I think I'm getting boggled down by the double-negatives...

"NO (indicator) one is invited (idea 1) who did not RSVP (idea 2)."

So then if the rule is to pick either, negate it, and make it necessary, then wouldn't you get this breakdown?

One is invited > /RSVP

Contrapositive: RSVP > /one is invited

I realize logically this is flawed -- if one RSVPs, you could make a strong inferrence that they were invited... Am I making sense? Where am I getting crossed up?

Anyone else feel like Damian Lillard getting the last two right?

(I was a mess questions 1-3 lol)

Disney argument leaves no room for error.

Tiger argument's claim, while accurate, relies on a specific instance within a larger generalization. Tigers are usually very aggressive though not always.

Trash bin relies entirely on suspicion without any tangible causal relationship. Who isn't to say that the bin was knocked over before Mr Fat Cat arrived on the scene? Is there no other time when Mr Fat Cat licks his paws?

Does this make sense?? How am I doing? Lol

Hi everyone! I'm Andrew -- likely taking in June and based in LA if anyone is looking for accountability partners/study groups? Did my undergrad at Indiana and work in entertainment