I thought that the main point would've been the third opinion. Basically "debate of fully free will or fully Gods, but actually it's inbetween" so it's good to hear it's actually just the fact that there's a debate to begin with.

I spent like 5 mins trying to write in lawgic just to realize I didn't have to

So basically part of the arguement was independent of the theorists beliefs which then switch it from a stand alone arguement to something else?

It's a 34% chance of survival btw.

I'm still confused on why exaclty "The amout of aesthetic pleasure that a diamond provides is relevant to the value that it commands" isn't sufficent, or is it simply Necessary AND Sufficent.

So it's D becasue that's regarding the context which the stimulus states, where B is broader in general?

I almost did D but did B and looking at the video made it much more obvious.

I did A becasue I thought the point in this arguement is that it wont cause extintions ever, not that it could cause it but only if in close proximity.

I read disinclined as disciplined :/

Didn't see the word "except"

I actually did it right in terms of making it into lawgic but I just got the wrong answer, still feel good about getting diagram correct.

So basically the contrapositive is just too vague it can basically include anything.

The Mastering conditional logic requires some amount of memorizing conditional indicatiors I think clicked something for me before I think I was sub-concinusley thinking sufficent and necessity were somehow chronological.

Accidently did Sophisticated Listener->Good Show

0/5 I gotta lock in on the suficent vs necessity

Does this fall into the formal lawgic then?

A->B

x->B

------

x->A?

I can't believe I got it right.

I did SFP->/H

Therefore

H->/SFP

Best part is if that I didn't know lawgic I would've ruled out the answer which states that "those who are happy don't have serious financial problems" just because it sounds wrong, even if, in this case, it's 100% valid.

I was going to originally ask if "/A->ADP" would work as well but I'm starting to get that it would be confusing sufficency and necessity. I think I'm starting to catch on.

Good to know that negations can already be in the sentence. I thought I'd have to have something like "/Not serves well" which would get confusing fast.

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.