For the sake of logic and assuming premises to be true this makes total sense. I'm curious though about interpreting real world arguments where we don't assume premises to be true. Would it be the case that because there are assumptions built into each link of the causal chain that A –causes–> B is stronger than A –causes–> D?

@dh2303 I think that makes sense to me. So given our real world knowledge we could say that A <–s–> C is invalid because we know A –> /C? Do I have that right? But isn't the point of understanding the lawgic to assume we don't know anything about the real world? Like couldn't you only say that C is defined by the Absence of A if you bring with you some sort of knowledge about C that exists outside of the premises?

@dh2303 If I understand your comment you are referring to the conclusion that to be in the PY Phil you must be exceptionally good?

@laurenstudies I agree as well! I imagine the information is being presented to us this way because some of the answers will be translations of the lawgic

That ambiguity sure does get weaponized by politicians

@brine my point was if you said "Jane is a faster runner than Mary and Jon" that could be confusing

I got 1 & 3 right. Made an oldest mistake in the book error on #2 but I understand it after review.

@RonW So I think the sentence is assuming we are talking about pet adoption centers, therefore it wouldn't be a condition. It could be the case that a pet adoption center has or does not have an interactive website. It could be the case that a pet adoption center is a 501(c)3 non-profit or it is not. It is not however the case that a pet adoption center could be a pet adoption center or it could not, it just is. Does that make sense?

Only took me 10 minutes but I got it

@Kevin Lin Got it! Thank you so much for your response

I have a question about #2.

Any Pokemon that doesn't reach its full potential must have avoided training. I translated this as:

Pokemon reach full potential -> Avoided Training

Avoided Training -> Pokemon reach full potential

My confusion is in taking the contrapositive as to how saying avoided training is equivalent to well-trained. Couldn't a Pokemon have not avoided training but still also not be well trained?

I guess in other words it doesn't seem obvious to me that simply attending training results in being well-trained.

I was thinking about why we might say Jane is a faster eater than either Mary or Jon rather than Jane is a faster eater than Mary and Jon. Is it to rule out any confusion about the sentence being interpreted as saying Jane is a faster eater than Mary and Jon combined?

Okay officially going back to write down which words are group 1 and which are group 2

I fell for the oldest trick in the book :/

Okay so I got #5 wrong when I answered it on my own. Here's my attempt to understand it after watching the video.

At least 59 percent of households [this is what "they" refers to] maintained a lower indoor temperature [in the present/now] than they [the 59 percent of households] had been accustomed to maintain [at some time in the past/not now] on very cold days [context for when the comparison applies].

I think what is confusing about this sentence is the fact that we are comparing two points in time which are ambiguous. Let's replace the temporal components with specific moments in time and all of a sudden it becomes much more clear what is happening.

At least 59 percent of households maintained a lower indoor temperature in the past three weeks than they had been accustomed to maintain in the three weeks prior on very cold days.

Make more sense?

The word "that" can be used as a modifier and a referential. But, that confuses me.

@BraedenB It seems to me like it is less important to be able to name the specific grammatical category of a word or phrase than it is to understand the sentence as a whole. Don't get too caught up in the grammatical jargon.

I went 5/5! But like others all of them were over time.

For the first time since I graduated college I am happy I majored in philosophy