Went over time, but I got it correct. My only issue was that I chose "worry" to express the sufficient condition and not "$ problems". As a result, it took me a bit longer to get to the correct answer.

#feedback

I think it would be helpful to see how these problems are solved using each of the 3 frameworks we learned about for Rules and Exceptions.

@Reddrum0911 lmaooooo

chile....

#Helpppp

For #4, I put:

Domain: Journalism

AI --> G

/G --> /Acc Info

Acc Info = accurate info about a subject about which there is considerable interest

G= Good

I didn't see any conjunction indicator words, so why is the correct way acc info + int subject --> good?

Because I combined the sufficIent term and had it as "AI", that would mean that if I had to contrapose, I'd get it wrong because I'd have: /G--> /AI instead of: /G--> /acc info + /int subject ??

How did you know to include a conjunction for the sufficient side?

@madeinkeaven lmaooo... I needed this. Thank you :)

2/3... #1 stumped me smh

@yam great tip!

#4 confused me. I was able to identify "No" as the Group 4 indicator (negate necessary), but I think my mistake was including the "no" into the first idea (No one is invited) because I ended up negating the "no" (making it positive) and came up with this:

/RSVP--> Invited

I need to remember not to include Group 4 indicators in the ideas.

We KNOW something if:

1. Necessary condition FAILS to occur

2. Sufficient condition OCCURS

WE DON'T KNOW something if:

1. Necessary Condition OCCURS

2. Sufficient condition FAILS to occur

@DamiOye lolll real

#helpp

I need help identifying when a conditional keyword indicator is expressing a conditional relationship, and when they are not.

For example, I thought #5 in this question set and #1 in the last one were trick questions, and that there were no conditional relationships present despite the use of a conditional keyword indicator.

Can someone help me discern this better so I don't run into this issue again?

Not sure what lies ahead in the lessons, but I think seeing examples of statements that contain keyword indicators, but are not actually expressing a conditional relationship, would be super helpful!

@JiggityJack5 @everleez Not sure how to best describe it, but you know how in math when you have numbers in parentheses, and there's a negative sign outside the parentheses? You then have to distribute the negative sign to everything inside the parentheses-- think of using parentheses for these lawgic negations as a way to ensure that all the terms within the parentheses get negated. This is important for conditions containing more than one clause

Example:

If I ate --> I went to sleep and had a dream)

To negate this, it would be:

/(I went to sleep and had a dream) --> /I ate.

Including the parentheses in the contraposed term on the left is important because if not, it could be easily misinterpreted as "I did not go to sleep and I had a dream" as opposed to "I did not go to sleep and I did not have a dream).

The negation above is really supposed to be: /(I went to sleep or I had a dream). But you'll learn more about that in a future lesson.

I really hope that gave you some clarity :))

#Help

Been getting them all correct so far until I got to #4 in this skill builder. I put:

IP WRS --> IP can fly

/(IP can fly) --> /(IP WRS)

IP = Italian Plumber

WRS = Wearing Raccoon Suit

Is this completely incorrect? How can I avoid making this mistake in the future when I come across similarly structured conditional statements?

@Elideebeep Thank you for sharing this :)

@lorealol lmaooo real

#4 cooked me. This is what I put:

Step 1: Detecting planets outside our solar system vs. detecting planets inside our solar system

Step 2: Which one requires more sophisticated instruments than are currently available?

Step 3: detecting planets outside our solar system

I don't see how my answer is necessarily wrong. Question 2 in Comparative Skill Builder 1, where we had to imply the term "glacial", is what led me to imply "detecting planets inside our solar system" for this question. I hope that made sense

5/5. But for Step 1 in Q # 5, I interpreted "rights of any people currently alive" to mean that any rights they have will not be of greater importance than the right of future generations to preserve their artistic heritage.

@jamandaa lollll

@devientmelody Good to know, thank you

3/5. Aww. I thought 2. was a trick question and that we needed more information. I didn't realize that "glacial" was implied. Scientific terms aren't my strongest suit, either lol. What helped me put implied terms into perspective better was the translation I came up with:

"Water heats up more slowly than it does in summer seasons."

Wth this example, it's easy to see that the two things being compared are summer seasons and non-summer seasons, without "non-summer seasons" being explicitly stated. It's also easy for me to see the referents and swap them for their referents.

For Question 4, I thought Step 3 would be " humans act more unselfishly." OR "humans act unselfishly just as much as they act selfishly". After watching the video, I now understand that we weren't supposed to focus on the subject and predicate verb, but I thought it was okay, given the lesson on absolutes and relatives, where the context provided helped us arrive at our implications.

@NoraElkhyati When something is "absolute", you have a clear, straightforward answer/outcome, with no room for an alternative possibility. When something is "relative", it's more vague and has more than one possible answer. Think of "absolute" like math, where there is only one correct answer (1+1 will always equal 2), and "relative" as something broad, or allowing for more than one possibility, like ELA/writing, where many perspectives can be true as long as they are supported. I really hope this helps :)

@AndrewHowell It's acceptable, because even without you mentioning "proportion" in Step 2, it is implied that "proportion" is what we are talking about when we say "which one is significantly lower?"

@Adri lmaooo bruh

@SRay shrimp populations, when compared with each other, have less genetic differences than when you compare those same shrimp populations (or any shrimp population) with other marine species. I hope this helped in some way!