I don't like how instead of breaking down the S/N conditions we are relying on indicators here. We just skipped over why each clause was S or a N condition.

It took me embarrassingly long to understand this but I want to post it for anybody who is having trouble understanding the "Arrow question"-meaning what happens to the sufficient and necessary titles:

I need to preface that you need to start off with the right premise because i didn't. I didn't understand Conditions. Conditions are not this is sufficient and this is necessary-it's more like this condition causes the other one to happen or be true.

A condition: A situation or state that causes another to have to be true. That's what the LSAT means by conditional logic.

Not Mammal becomes sufficient condition because it's ENOUGH to guarantee Not Cat-BUT it is sufficent because you can be Not Cat in other ways like being a dog. It's a condition because Whenever not mammal happens not cat will happen-thats the condition.

Not Cat is necessary because we know that when Not Mammal is true then Not Cat MUST happen/Be true. That is why it's necessary. When not mammal happens not cat must happen to/has to follow.

If x then Y actually means Xis the trigger (sufficient) - Y is guaranteed (Necessary).

Not mammal -> Not cat ---- means : whenever the condition of not mammal happens, the condition of not cat must also happen

I understand the logic, but it takes time for me to really understand it.

I think there are some inconsistencies in this module. Example: In the question number 4, we didn't say the winds was an object, but on the video we did. I think there are also issues with differentiating objects and modifiers.

Why is "To ensure access to a well-balanced diet" a premise? It seems it should be context.

At first I thought a possible assumption if we are trying to poke holes in the reasoning would be that non-members of Disney Vacation club can access the Genie+ pass a different way. However, once we mention that Walt is a member of the DVC than that assumption is no longer being made.

When viewing the actual argument we are supposed to view it in "the world" of the premise. So, when talking about assumptions - are we supposed to rate its reasonableness based off our general world knowledge? (so not just in the arguments world)

To own a dog one must have responsibility. If you have responsibility you must be intelligent, Which further requires a desire. Therefore, if you want to own a dog you must have a desire. OAD->R->I->D. OAD->D. I know there are plenty of flawed assumptions here.

If one was born in New York City, then one is American. Zach was born in NYC. Therefore, Zach is an American.

A tip to help anyone that is confused: Don't use the words "membership", "Sufficient", and "necessary." Instead just say something like this: Being a part of mammal set is not enough to be a part of cat set—but being a mama is needed to be a part of cat set. Or: You need to be a mammal or a part of mammal set to be in the cat club. Play around with the words.