When we have sentences like "Only if Knights wield enchanted swords can they slay dragons." and we identify the necessary clause as "can slay dragons", does that mean slaying dragons is sufficient for a knight to bear an enchanted sword? Surely it doesn't right? I'm getting a bit confused because of how we translate it to lawgic: sufficient -> necessary.

Isn't the verb in the archaeologists sentence "helped discover" as helped is a catenative verb (linking verb) ?

I see a contradiction in # 10

MW -> W

MW -> M

LSD -> /M

H -> LSD

mwLSD

It tells us Mr. White cooks Meth (MW-> M) and synthesizes LSD (mwLSD) BUT If you synth LSD you cannot cook meth (/LSD -> M). Which is it? Does he cook meth or not?

Is this a typo in the question or can we expect to be presented with questions that contradict themselves or am I missing something?

#help #feedback

#help #feedback Would appreciate a detailed walk-though on how to chain together the individual pieces of question 2. It's a pretty difficult question compared to the other ones we've seen.