The difference between those is in the earlier videos of the scoops and buckets, that logic is A←s→B→C. Translates to "Some of A are B" and "All of B are C" therefore "Some of A are C"

Versus "A→B←s→C". That translates to "All of A are B" and "Some of B are C", but we cannot conclude that "Some of A are C". Why? Because the B that belong to C might not be any of the A. We know that all A are inside the B category, but we don't know whether the particular B that are C overlap with A at all.

If it was "Most of A are B" and "All of B are C" we could determine "Some of A are C" (but cannot conclude "Most of A are C")

So an example

With the bucket/scoop logic:

Premise: Some mammals are cats (A←s→B or mammals←s→cats)

All cats have whiskers (B→C, cats→whiskers)

Conclusion: Some mammals have whiskers.

Versus the "A→B←s→C"

Premise: "All cats are mammals" (A→B)

"Some mammals have four eyes" (B←s→C)

Conclusion: We cannot validly conclude that "Some cats have four eyes" (A←s→C). The mammals with four eyes could be dogs, while all cats have two eyes. Both premises would still be true, but the conclusion would be false.