If E said: the novel Safekeeping, published by peninsula press, will probably earn a profit for its publisher since almost every profitable novel was published by Peninsula over the last ten years.

Then Would this be a parallel flaw to the stimulus?

Not a very important question but just trying to understand the flaw as best I can

@TG55 I was also wondering the same thing. I understand it’s not parallel to the argument in the stimulus, but I would like to know if E is a valid argument or not?

is the argument about Jackson taking the advice a valid argument? I know it's not parallel to the Peter brushing teeth argument, but I'm wondering if it's valid at all, say IF we assume deep contentment and happiness are the same thing.

If deep contentmnet = happiness, It sounds like the necessary condition of "succeeding in happiness" was met. But that couldn't lead us to the conclusion that Jackson took the advice right? Since only the necessary condition was met

Tiger argument….

Many coffee tables are rectangles, but The coffee table in my top floor penthouse is an oval. Therefore, not every coffee table is rectangular.

Disney argument…

I only buy Prada or Burberry sunglasses. The sunglasses I bought today are not Prada. Therefore, the sunglasses I bought today are Burberry.

Cat argument….

In the past, my waffle maker has broken and caused a significant amount of smoke to be emitted in the air, causing the smoke alarm to go off in my penthouse. My best friend Julian is a waffle connoisseur. He makes waffles every single day. He has never gone a single day without eating a waffle. He likes his waffles to be crispy. While penthouse sitting at my penthouse, he texted me to say the smoke alarm is going off. Therefore, Julian broke the waffle machine again and caused the smoke alarm to go off.