I find it frustrating that I just spent 3 days intensely learning Conditional Logic diagramming and chaining, but then the adaptive drill didn't contain a single conditional logic question, but rather a group of questions that I've not yet learned the concepts for (mostly necessary assumption). I'm in the Foundations section, I won't learn necessary assumption skills for 2 more weeks.

So this results in me going from feeling confident after mastering a new concept, straight into doing poorly on a drill because it tests concepts that I haven't learned yet in the lessons, thus, losing my confidence.

The psychology behind this drill being placed right here in the lesson structure is very curious.

I tried out asking this to the AI Coach and got a clear answer. Sharing that response here in case anyone else struggled with #3:

You actually arrived at the exact right translation, Devin! Your final Lawgic (/Brave → /Mordor, which contraposes to Mordor → Brave) is 100% correct.

Your intuition for the logic is spot on, which is why your method worked here. By negating "brave" and negating "venture into Mordor," you essentially performed the "If Not" substitution for "unless" perfectly. "Unless brave" became "If not brave" (/Brave), and "no one ventures" became "does not venture" (/Mordor).

Will your approach always work unconditionally? Viewing these as "competing" rules where you apply two separate formulas simultaneously is risky. It worked well here, but on more complex sentences, mechanically applying two different group rules at the same time can lead to double-negation errors or mixed-up sufficient/necessary conditions. You didn't just get lucky—you logically understood the sentence—but as a formula, it's safer to use one dominant structure.

So, how do you handle competing indicator words? When "unless" is in a sentence, let "unless" be the boss. It usually dictates the structural relationship between the two main clauses. You don't actually "ignore" the word "no"—instead, you use it as part of the standard "Unless" equation.

Here is the foolproof way to handle this using the standard 7Sage "Unless" formula (Unless = Necessary, Negate the Rest = Sufficient):

1. Find the necessary condition: Whatever follows "unless" is your necessary condition. Here, that's "they are brave." So, Brave (B) goes on the right side of the arrow (→ B).

2. Find the sufficient condition: Take the entire rest of the sentence and negate it. The rest of the sentence is "No one ventures into Mordor." What is the logical negation of "no one ventures"? It's "someone ventures" or simply "ventures into Mordor." So, Mordor (M) is your sufficient condition. It goes on the left side of the arrow (M → ).

When you put it together, you get M → B (If you venture into Mordor, you must be brave). Its contrapositive is /B → /M (If you are not brave, you do not venture into Mordor).

By letting "unless" drive the formula, you naturally take care of the "No" during the negation step. You don't have to guess which rule trumps the other; you just follow the Unless rule, and the negative word flips to positive automatically when you negate that half of the sentence.

@aikol.iva I had the exact same worry. I just asked a question to see if someone from the app would pop in and clarify.

If you've moved on further in the lessons since this comment, I'd love to know if you've gotten clarity on this!

I'm puzzled and need guidance on how to approach the #3's "competing indicator words" situation in the future.

I followed a completely different thought process than what was explained in the video, but I came to the same answer.

I worry that the rules I followed may not always be the correct approach for future instances; can someone confirm if my approach works unconditionally?

My process: Instead of ignoring "no one", I followed both of the indicator rules for "no" and for "unless".

• For "No/G4", I negated "venture into Mordor" and made it the necessary condition.

• For "Unless/G3" I negated "they are brave" and made it the sufficient condition.

• This gave me: /brave --> /mordar (contraposed to mordar --> brave)

Or in other words, my approach was: When two competing category indicator words are present in one conditional statement, rather than randomly "picking" an idea, exclusively apply that indicator's rule to the idea paired with that indicator word (apply G4 rule to "venture into Mordar", and G3 rule to "they are brave")

Will this approach likely always work or did I just get lucky?

And if it will not always work, I have so many questions, like:

• How do you know which indicator word to ignore?

  • Does a certain Group trump the other?

  • Is it about which indicator shows up first/last in the conditional statement?

  • Is this the case for all competing indicator groups or specifically 3 & 4?

My brain hurts.

I selected E because I was tricked by the presence of the word "clearly" because I had flagged it as one of the "usually followed by the conclusion" indicator words.

I have to condition myself to ask the "is this claim supported by another claim" question before submitting.

I can't decide if indicator words are helping me or leading me in the wrong direction. I identified the correct conclusion before seeing the word "clearly." 🤦🏻‍♀️