Is it correct to view your transition from "no parrots are clever" to "all parrots are not clever" as an application of the group four negate negate necessary? My mind just processes it quicker that way; for the LSAT, the less memory I have to use, the better. So I can roll with the idea that "no parrots are clever" works out to P--->/C due to Group 4 Negate Necessary that would be just swell.

@KevinLin Awesome. Thank you. I think this course of yours is the best money I've ever spent.

@KevinLin Mind=blown(picking up mind pieces). So, manipulation of conditionals is contingent, if I'm to understand correctly; that is, manipulate the logic until you see logical connections? So, did you not draw out the contrapositive because you looked ahead and saw related terms in the follow-on sentences?

For question 4, why wasn't the final step of Group 3(negate sufficient) applied--the contrapositive? Seems like the explanation in the video negated (never accept) to (accept), put it in as the sufficient, made (truly conf.) the necessary, but then didn't apply the contrapositive to make it: /(truly conf.) -->/(accept leadership). Explainer then just went on to the next term.