@BrookeRodriguez depends on how much time you're giving yourself before your test date, I feel the more time you give yourself the more time you can devote to comprehensive lessons like this, if you're a few months out it's probably best to take practice questions and go back to fundamentals on topics you're struggling on.

@sapalmeri I personally just summaries the "Let's Review" box of every lesson in my notebook

this is such a breathe of fresh air from conditional logic structured questions

For question #5, would another appropriate translation of the negation include, "Chess' ability to be an appropriate analogy to reporting on PC is anywhere from 0-50%?

or it better to understand it as a loser or tying with something else to be more appropriate analogy for reporting on PC?

@KhushyMandania I was a bit confused by as well as the Lawgic translations are the same but the main difference is the difference in relation it gives between two concepts.

You can see the differences in the negations of each. All A are B is simply stating that relation, for example "All games are fun" so we see with the negation when we deny that relationship we are stating that "it isn't the case that all games are fun" or "Some A are not B" so "Some games are not fun"

Now the difference in a conditional statements is the relationship between the two concepts is different, we are not saying that "All of A is B." We are instead saying "If A happens then B."

Therefore when we deny that relationship in the negation we see the differences there as well. Stating the A is independent of be or "A can occur and B not occur."

"If I find a game is fun then I will play it with my friends"

negation

"One can find a game fun and not play it with friends"

@elchapin I believe it all depends on context

@AkshayaAnnampedu I think the focus is the meaning of the quantifier "some" although yes "students" is plural, "some" infers the range of the lower boundary of students is one. Just like how in the next lesson he discusses that even if all the students could read, that would not exclude it from the quantifier of "some." So just as "some" can mean all, "some" can mean one student even in the grammatical context of a plural "students"

i needed that

@TyWatts for me what got me was reaching the assumption that The Knights of Vale being renowned for the valor must mean a contraposition of the original chain. Which isn't a reasonable assumption.

working through problems 1-3 really helped me understand uses for the Rules and Exceptions Framework lessons a bit better so thank you for those!

having a hard time wrapping my head around this concept

got all three wrong :/ need to work on this

I mapped out the question correctly into lawgic but failed to understand the answer selections for how they would map out on the lawgic mapping. Need more practice with understanding the answer selections.

Why is there a chained conditional between

Famous Dragons---->Can fly----->powerful wings

if the sentence only states that "creatures can fly." How do we know that "famous dragon" is sufficient for "creatures," is it inferred from the usage of "and" in the sentence?

5/5 - I feel what made sure I corrected myself as I translated the conditional relations into lawgic and not forgetting negation already present was double checking by translating it back into English into the "if-then" statement. IF it didn't make sense THEN I must've messed up in my lawgic translation in some way.

@lemonpie yes I believe the ability distinguish between the "inclusive or" and "exclusive or" use case is based on the context of the sentence.

finally got 5/5!! Glad I caught the context in #4 and didn't focus too much on indicators. I'm trying to make sure locating indicators in secondary to figuring out proper context of indicator words.

@epayne17 the point of the -> element is to show the conditional relationship present in the argument, not to provide context. Reading the sentence/argument provides you with the context to which we figure out how to use the -> to show the conditional relationship.

In this context, the "If I go to the store [subset], then I will buy milk [superset]." Therefore, store -> milk; try not to rely on your intuition about what you might get at the store. Only what is presented in the argument.

@JasmineMinhas So going back to the USA NYC example.

With USA as the superset and NYC as the subset as we know it falls inside the USA.

Now look at the member within the subset of NYC, Empire State Building. This member is "sufficient" enough to fall under both NYC and USA as you know the empire state building is both in NYC which is also in the USA.

BUT there are other landmarks in the USA other than the Empire State Building (i.e. Golden Gate Bridge, Grand Canyon) things that can fall in the superset of USA but not NYC. So the Empire State building is "sufficient" enough to fall under both USA and NYC but not "necessary" to be a member of the broader superset of USA.

I feel (including myself) got confused that the Empire State Building being "not necessary" as you'd think "Oh obviously it necessary because the Empire State Building is in NYC and USA so why wouldn't it be necessary" I kept getting hung up on the verbiage of "not necessary."

The way I helped my head wrap around this concept better was looking at it from the perspective of the Eiffel Tower.

The Eiffel Tower is in no way inside the USA so we know 100% that it could never fall inside the subset of NYC. Therefore we know for sure that if a member is to fall outside the superset of the USA that for sure means (or it is a "necessity" and not "sufficient" enough) to ever fall into the subset of NYC.

Hopefully that helps at least a little, I'm still trying to fully grasp it myself.

I need to do a better job in analyzing the answer prompts. I was able to extract the proper meaning out of the comparative claims in the question but failed to see the intricacies of the language used in B and C to be able to better differentiate it from the correct answer in E

ahhh number 1 got to me. The previous skill builder comparative question that dealt with a implied comparison between "what they were accustom to" and the implied "now" made me think that the comparison for number 1 was of similar usage. I was thinking "previously" compared to "now" not realizing that the "previously" is reference to the "winter months" instead implying "the months before winter months."

@AmiraVanLeeuwen its inferred

@brandenesrawi same

@beary13 Hooking up cars and making 'em function

@Ryo He's just fleshing out the different aspects of the previous lessons.

[subject-noun] - they're referring to what noun is the subject of the whole sentence.

[predicate-verb] - what verb is associated with what the subject is doing.

[predicate-object] - nouns that can be part of the predicate and describe what the object is doing.

You're looking for those aspects of the sentence to figure out what these convoluted sentences are saying:

[subject] [predicate].

All the other ["blank" modifies] refer to all the words that build around that subject-predicate relationship and give it more context, as well as what aspect of the relationship they are trying to describe.