@GennaBishop bless you 😂

Or is the “tempting but incorrect negation” not saying that the above mentioned is incorrect, but the following statement is??? Lord, ima have a seizure 😂

Why is the negation of Some unicorns poop rainbows not no unicorns poop rainbows

BUT

Some mice are fat can be negated into no mice are fat or all mice are not fat?

I’m very confused on why this has changed. Please please help!

@Danaizha I think it’s because you cannot do contrapositives for “some” and “most”?

@VChristian do you mean the answer choice claiming the monster isn’t physically dangerous?

You have two sufficient conditions for a monster to be threatening. You can be horrific and/or you can be physically dangerous. We know the monster isn’t physically dangerous, so that rules out one way to gain membership in the superset. BUT the monster can inspire revulsion. If you can do that, then you are horrific, and being horrific allows you membership into the superset of being threatening.

I drew it like this:

Horrific —> threatening

Physically dangerous —> threatening

Inspires revulsion —> horrific

Inspires revulsion —> horrific —> threatening

These two sufficient conditions are independent of each other so only one is “needed” to trigger the necessary condition. If I’m not physically dangerous and I’m horrific, I can still be threatening.

Does this make sense?

So, for Q5 I got

Aware exists + believe it does exists —> established

Th analysis said “doesn’t believe it doesn’t exist” wouldn’t the two negations cancel out? Or is not believing something doesn’t exist not the same as believing it does? It’s probably not the same, huh 🥹

I think I understand but this is wholly reliant upon the other way being true as well:

So I understand that if I live in a building with 10+ units and I’ve kept my pet openly and notoriously then I have the right to keep a pet. By saying the contrapositive of the other necessary option ( R and /opno) I’m ruling out that option and since it has to be one option, then that would have to mean I have the right.

BUT please confirm then that if I live in a building with 10+ units and I don’t have the right to keep my pet then that means my pet has not been chilling with me openly and notoriously.

I just want to make sure that would follow logically, in reality it makes perfect sense and I see people in my apartment complex sneak with their dogs all the time bc we live in a building with 10+ units and we don’t have the right to have pets lol.

@Ada do CondR, MBT, and Inf questions and go to the study plan when they were talking about sufficient and necessity indicators! Remember also that when you line it up, what was sufficient may be necessary for another condition-for example the first question you have

Horrific ——> threatening

Physically dangerous ——> threatening

Revulsion ——> horrific

start seeing what you can line up together:

Revulsion ——> horrific ——> threatening

Do you see how being horrific is sufficient for membership in being threatening but it is necessary to have inspire revulsion?

You can see that if you inspire revulsion, you are threatening

Also try the contrapositive:

/threatening ——> /horrific ——> /revulsion

If you are not threatening then you don’t inspire revulsion.

All that other hooplah when it’s talking about “whether or not something is psychologically dangerous blah blah”, I think is really saying that these qualities don’t preclude or prevent the monster from being threatening if that monster is also physically dangerous. Not of biggest importance right now.

One of the main tricks is the answer will mess up the order of “the line”

For example A:

Any horror-story monster that is threatening is also horrific

Any is a sufficient indicator and what follows is the subject “monster that is threatening”

the predicate is being horrific.

Threatening ——> horrific

We know that being horrific is sufficient for being  threatening. Threatening is a necessary condition. A would mess up the line.

Make sure your line is strong, use the contrapositive to bolster defense and knock the answers down that don’t match up! I hope this made sense!

I also dk which ones you got wrong but if I made any sense you can message me and we can go over the three!:)