so, is the Harry Poter example valid? I think it is. The use of 'probably' indicates that Draco Malfoy might or might not be Harry Poter's friend.

I still do not understand how to approach to this kind of questions. Does the correct answer usually fill a logic gap of the statement? A paraphrase of some information (causal mechanism?)? or something else??

All dogs are friendly.

My understanding of negation:

negation: 'none of dogs are friendly' or 'at least one dog is not friendly' or 'some dogs are not friendly'. There is the possibility that 0% to 99% dogs are not friendly.

It seems that 'some dogs are not friendly' implies that 'all dogs are not friendly, because 'some' can imply 'all'.

Correct me if I am wrong!

I will score 170 +

I will score 170 +

I will score 170 +

I still do not understand what 'domain' actually means

Can we think the modifier as another 'and' statement, i.e, 'and' condition.

for instance:

"Any journalism that provides accurate information on a subject about which there is considerable interest is good journalism."

Accurate-information and interest -> good journalism

/good journalism -> /accurate-information or /interest

(is it okay to think this way?)

Or we still think that 'interest' is part of the modifier to modify the condition of 'Accurate-information' and hence cannot be regarded as another condition.

I am thinking between B and E. I think E denies the premise. Isn't it? Most right choice does not deny the premise. isn't it??? Am I wrong again??? so sad :(

Question four confuses me. "Some people claim that any internally consistent scientific theory is plausible."

I think "plausible" is the superset while "any scientific theory" is the subset. The sentence should be translated into "If something is plausible, it could be ineternally consistent scientific theory. but any internally consistent scientific theory must subject to the 'plausible'. I still think it is the 'plausible' makes the scientific theory necessary.

Therefore, I believe "plausible->internally scientific theory". it is not the right answer. Please correct me.

It takes me three minutes to draw the LAWGIC and figure out the answer.... I do not think I have enough time to do that in the exam. However, I cannot do the question without drawing the arrow. This particularly one is not intuitive.

I am still very confusing. Let's take this example. I will go to a park if it's sunny. (let's not use 'only if' first)

So, 'Sunny' is the superset, while 'go to a park' is the subset. However, the sunny weather does not restrict me from going to other places. If it's sunny, I can also go to a soccer field. the sunny weather does not make me have to be at park. But everytime I am at a park, it is sunny. Am I correct??

Ok, then we change it to 'I will go to a park only if it's sunny'

So, 'go to a park' is the superset, while 'sunny' is the subset? I am really confusing...... Do I make mistakes on distinguishing between the premise and conclusion?

As English is not my first language, I find logic very difficult to understand. Please helppppppp. thanks

how to see the results of the drills I took after I closed that window? I do not want to create a new drill...

How to see my results of the drill again???/?

If an argument is valid, it means the argument is logically correct (The premise supports the conclusion and does not contradict one another.) Even though the premises are false, it can still be a valid argument.

anyone can give me suggestions on doing the 'sufficient' type of questions. I cannot even understand the basic. Which views should I go through again?? So hard!!

It is necessary to be in superset first then and to be in the subset

The Eiffel tower is not in the USA. So, it must not be in NYC.

Being in the subset is enough to be in the superset (Empire state is in NYC and of course it is in USA)

But it is not necessary to be in the subset to be in the superset (Even though grand canyon is not in NYC, but it is in the USA. It is not necessary for everything in NYC to be in the USA.

From my understanding, an argument is a cause and effect relation. Premise points to the conclusion and shows 'things' while conclusion results from the premise. Conclusion is what the author really wants to convey; it is the 'point'. Assumption is the 'missing/forgotten' premise. There might be mulptiple ways to get to the 'point' (conclusion).But if and only if the provided premises support the argument, or put in another way, if there are no forgotten premises, then it is a strong argument. The more the 'forgotten premises' are, i.e, the more the potential ways to the point that have not been mentioned or conditioned, the weaker the argument is. The context is additional information that not necessarily directly cause the conclusion but helpful to understand the conconclusion. That's my understanding. Please correct meeee.

how can i memorize these details? it is so challenging!!!

I still do not understand why C is redundant while D is not...