@tcbc59 it is that some does not preclude all ... in other words only hearing some does not mean that all is not true as well. However, if there are some X, you cannot infer there are all X necessarily. it is possible but without information past that you cant; there just is not enough context

I cannot even go past a single question; fulled bugged :(

It's beautiful

I am so happy I took a formal logic course ... If anyone is still in undergrad I really, really think you should look into taking formal logic (under a philosophy department likely) ... You may find a lot of this to become natural to your thinking

I got 5 right, however ... Would we not be assuming the Ume is a tree? And without that information can we really get this entailment??

@draikavu I see your point but I think @MeikeJourdain is right. What needs to happen in your brain is and understanding of the meaning of the logic itself. If you can only grasp applying a set of rules, you may misunderstand what a premise (myb. conclusion) means.

I got 5/5 but my worry is what will happen in the wild... I knew the rule to apply... I feel like using this rule in the start is good but truly understanding how these function in the wild is the way to a really good score... like if I show myself 10 translations of all 3 groups ... can I get all 10 ... because they do different things

@BenjaminMcDaniel Same with me. What helped was going back and MAKING sure I knew why for each question I was wrong or right ... and then it all got faster

@jaydenca If you mean that you did not include them in what ever phrase or acronym you used I think that is fine; my understanding is that we have a fast simple system to place these complex claims into a IF THEN statement ... and drawwing that arrow is what will cemend that into your mind... For a lot of my answers I did not include everything ... for 5 I said "cruise ship stop U" --> NSAP and then its contrapositive

5/5. I got 2/5 on the first one... Some things that helped me... albeit slow ... is speaking out loud the difference between making the claim necessary versus sufficient; what is this claim really saying about the world? For example with #1: Is it that if an organism feels pain it is a microscopic organism? Or is it that if something is a microscopic organism it feels pain? Because those are very different claims ... and Claim 1 is much more POWERFUL than claim 2 in terms of what it says about the world...

Learning about opposition vs. negation was VERY helpful... of course writing the symbols is mechanical but if you don't understand what is being translated this entire thing is pointless... so understanding the dif. between "it is not the case that things cost more" versus "things cost more" versus "things cost less" is important.

This is pretty funny for me. I am a phil. major so I have taken formal logic classes before... most languages I have used will use ~ for negation ... I have not seen a "/" before! A>~B, A, So ~B ... Anyway I am wondering if we can modify this language just a bit so it is faster to learn

@HiGigi Yes. Think about it like that + some clause = a complex object... In Q5, what is being realized? The bakery realizes X; And X = that it can't continue ... blah blah blah. I have been thinking of it as a way to express an object which is not merely just "a ball" but a thought/idea etc... I am thinking THAT .... etc.