@paligrrl This was SUPER helpful! Thank you!

In the Quantifier Inference Lesson, we are taught that All implies Most. So why in Q#1 is it some?

Can someone explain to me like I'm 5 why the final statement "As for generality..." means that most social science laws are not general?

I'm understanding it in the opposite manner.

@EJay In case anyone is wondering. I figured out the answer - it's because "without" is the indicator, not "no".

We're told that "No" is an indicator word (Negate, necessary). So in Question #3 when it says "No one can be worthy of power without being pure of heart", shouldn't it be:

Pure > Worthy???

Why is it flipped in this instance?

I'm upset and frustrated. Because in the conditional logic video it was stated that UNLESS should be treated as introducing a necessary claim.

These questions treat it as a sufficient.

Why even bother showing us that video if the rules were going to change? This is already hard enough without the contradiction or lack of explanation as to why the rules are different for the initial video vs this.

@Mandeemack I'd really recommend going back to the 30min Conditional Video and watching it again. BC this is where I'm pulling my info from, but essentially the formula of how this works is that ONLY the sufficient can trigger the necessary. The necessary canNOT trigger the sufficient.

Ex: Students are cited late (A) > 5 mins past bell (B)

The Premise states "Kumar is 17 Mins Late (B) > therefore will be cited late (A).

But this is INVALID, because B cannot trigger A.

This WOULD become Valid, if the premise was stated instead as:

Kumar was 17mins EARLY, therefore he won't be cited late. (bc that's the contrapositive of the main statement). Formula would be /b > /a.

OR

Elias was cited late (A) > arrived 5 mins past bell (B)

Which matches the original argument.

It really helps for me to break it down as algebraic formulas and not think about what they're "actually" saying at first.

-- So identify the main formula the argument is making. Then identify the formula of the premise that you're trying to determine if it's valid or invalid. THEN, compare it to the 4 formulas provided in the conditional video and you'll get your answer.

Two of those formulas are used in this example alone.

Hope this helps!

The Conditional Logic in 30mins video did a better job explaining sufficient vs necessary.

@JaviB27 I'm right there with you. I'm also struggling on what the questions are asking. I understand the main prompt and conclusion pretty well, i just can't connect it to the answers.

Where I am doing terribly is understanding what the question is asking of me. "Weakens" I thought meant to weaken the argument so that it contradicts the conclusion or the opposite of what the conclusion is trying to say. I understand the claims completely, but then I can't correlate the claim to the corresponding answers, which is why I get the wrong so often. Once I hear the explanation then I understand how they got the answer, but I feel stuck and frustrated.

Kind of a silly request, but it would be great to have a short quiz with these type of lessons (skippable to to those who don't need it) just to solidify what we've learned. I haven't been in school in over 10 years and it would be helpful just to lock it all back into place in my brain.