Here is a question #feedback

I understand the implied logic of the formal argument all A are B and most A are C; therefore, some B are C. Could we stretch this to say it is a valid inference that most B are C?

I think the answer would be no, but I would like to understand this better.

Think of this example. All really cool guys own a red sports car. Most really cool guys are tennis players. Therefore, most red sports car owners are tennis players.

The reaons I believe this is not valid is because All A are B only tells me that the subset A is completely consumed by the superset B. I can not make a "most" statement about superset B because I do not know how large that superset is.

While the Tiger Argument has a convincing premise which supports its conclusion, the Disney argument is stronger because it leaves no gaps for any other possibility besides Walt having offered propitiations. My eye immediately caught on to the phrase "can cause" in the Tiger argument and I knew that while it does increase the likelihood of the conclusion, it is not as strong of an argument as all tigers always attack people. The Disney argument offers multiple premises which not only increase the likelihood of the conclusion but make the conclusion true beyond a doubt. We know that Walt has access to the pass and has never prostrated himself to anything before. The Disney argument differs from the Tiger argument because it eliminates other possibilities and has a chain of reasoning.

I was so stumped as to why B is the correct answer choice, but now it helps me to see it in this analogy.

Once a month, the well-being of Mr. Fat Cat's first-grade class is surveyed and some months, it is reported that well-being is very low. It is a well-known fact that bullying causes some students to feel sad and being sad is a symptom of low well-being in the class. Every day, Mr. Fat Cat's class goes to recess. Sometimes Mr. Fat Cat's shredded, intimidating brother, Mr. Yoked Cat supervises recess.

Furthermore, several students bully the rest of the class by calling them names and refusing to play with them. This causes those students to feel sad.

Answer choice B which says A-Acid slows down the deterioration of cognitive abilities which is a symptom of Alzheimers is like a key that unlocks the puzzle.

The equivelant of answer choice B in this Mr. Fat Cat argument is if I added this information: The presence of Mr. Yoked Cat on the days which he does supervise has the effect of restraining the bullies from their typical mean behavior. See how adding that information demonstrates the relevance of that premise to the idea that sometimes the students bully other students which causes sadness which causes low reports of well-being?

Pack your bags boys, it's breeding season. We're going home for a family reunion!

I was feeling some confusion earlier about sufficient and necessary conditions. My biggest takeaway that helped me get over this hump is that you need to get over how weird the necessary condition sounds and just accept the form of the argument.

Think about the previous Anderson v. King County argument. The necessary condition is showing that the defining characteristic of a class is an immutable trait. In order to achieve the sufficient condition (qualifying as a suspect class) then it is necessary to prove that immutable trait.

The zombies argument can be confusing because the necessary condition of the market crashing, seems like one that can happen because of other reasons. Necessity does not imply the condition at hand is limited to the sufficient claim. Think about the subset, superset forms of this argument. The market crashing is the superset. There are other ways for the market to crash that do not involve the subset of zombies. Maybe there is a smaller subset in the market crashing superset which is a weird virus goes around causing people to shrink into ant-size!

This helps with questions like #5. Typically one group (A) will be easier to identify in these sorts of questions. I saw the phrase "than are accustomed to" and I knew that was one of the comparatives. I marked it A. You have to think about category which you know so far - on very cold days. Therefore since no other kinds of days are mentioned, I called the missing comparative group "all other days".

"When politicians resort to personal attacks, many editorialists criticize these attacks but most voters pay them scant attention. Everyone knows such attacks will end after election day..."

I understand how people could go both ways with the referential in the first sentence, "them". I'm chalking this up to being a poorly written, confusing sentence. Them can refer to "personal attacks" in addition to "editorialists".

The case is stronger for "personal attacks", but at this point I just want to justify my original thought which was referring to "editorialists".

If my cigarettes are paid for, SIGN ME UP

Every time I see my baby cousins at the pool I think, we must teach them to swim.

If anyone else is confused about the contrapositive form here, this might help.

What confused me initially is I was thinking:

A -> B

contrapositive : /A -> /B ...so how the hell does that capture the sense of if A does not precede B then A can't cause B.

The conditional looks like this:

If A can cause B -> then it must be the case that A preceded B

contrapositive: Should A NOT precede B -> A CANNOT cause B.

In this form where you take the A -> B to be the sufficient cause and the chronology of A and B to be the necessary cause, you can tell see clearly how the negation of the A to B timeline requires the A causing B negation.