Reminder to bookmark this one :)

How is "Some cats that can kill prey that weigh up to half of their body weight have a high muscle-to-fat ratio." an inference we can draw?

I know they are both the necessary conditions resulting from the same sufficient condition of good hunters....but how does that allow us to draw a relationship between the two necessary conditions?

I got this question right. However, I'm confused by how we are applying the some/all rules for the premises.

Why couldn't we say that because succ GD<---s--->FT and succ GD<-----s----->informal, that there can't be a relationship between some successful graphic designers who are formally trained also receive informal training. For the purpose of the answers, I know that that isn't a helpful piece of information, but I just don't understand why there can't be an overlap between those two concepts.

Does it have to do with the all-->most-->some chain of operations?

Thanks.

Q3: Feels like a really big jump in assumption that from getting the last conditional of

worthy-->pure heart

that it tell us that because "pure heart" started the chain of conditionals, that we should move "worthy" all the way to the left of the chain.

so with comparison statements that depend on "required" it seems like its better to ignore whatever comes before what's "required" and first focus in on the "A than B" portion of the statement. Would it be fair to say that " blah blah required" is likely going to contain the quality or trait that is being compared?

For question 4, why wouldn't "and so displays them only when requested for an exhibition" be considered an additional object clause to be drawn out and separated? Would "and so" not be considered its own predicate object if it is linking a different clause/point to the same sentence? Or does this not need to be separated out like that because it is a cause and effect relationship? 

valid argument = if premises are true (i.e. no assumptions/missing links)--->then conclusion has to be true