I'm starting to understand sufficency necessity now I think.

Def flagging this section and coming back like 20 times.

I didn't realize you can negate one of the two subjects on both sides of the contrapositive. I though it either had to negate both or neither, Seeing question one and two negate on of the two makes a lot of sense though and probably saves a lot of time.

On each question then essentially make myself blind to all prior knowledge.

@waardiel And to get into the necessary portion of that, an aligatior, not being a mammal, can also NOT be a cat.

I answered D and looking at the video if only I read the text for another second literally just skimming too fast I feel like.

This is the first time I got all 5 questions correct, feels really great. Espicially on the last one, I realized it was about wild life, not plant and wild life. Still need to get better at timing. Also on the last one, doing the A vs B then what's getting compared, and then, what one wins helped me alot too.

I answered C when looking now at the video it seems more obvious it was E, gotta stop comparing similar statements as the same.

For question 4, I got it all correct except the winner because I guess it really depends on what you think is better and I don't know anything regarding animals.

@YouielYiebiyo2030 This comment makes it make so much sense. I just kept thinking no med is faster = the ad's med is the fastest by default.

If it wasn't for the video explination I would've overthought it. But I think it's trying to get me to recognize where phrases stand in relation to another.

I got 3 and 5 wrong. 3 because I did E I guess I looked too much into it. And I did C for 5 instad of E and I don't know why on that one either. But still I think I'm getting better at these.

I keep thinking that modifiers to predicats are objects.

Question 3 was the one that got me, I thought black holes would've been the object.

I got the last question wrong, when I saw alternate, I overthank it and begun to think that non profits could fund it rather than public funds, but I forget that you need to remove all outside context on these things.

I answered E, I guess I thought that the warm sea ting meant that it was the premise, and that the first bit was context. But I understand it now, and might've gone too fast through the questions.

Mcdonalds sells burgers

All burgers are unhealthy

So Mcdonalds is unhealthy

Unhealthy places are by busy roads

So Mcdonalds is by a busy road.

For question 1-I'm assuming that a statement with premises and no conclusion means it's not an arguement.

I used the just get to the point one more than I though I would as well as the why should I believe this claim one more than just indicators.

My guess is that disney arguement explicitly states that there are two paths to getting the pass, and we know for a fact walt didn't use one of the.

For the tiger one, while it is true that tigers are often agressive, that doesn't mean that all tigers will always be aggressive.