@Bkk374 Thank you, your explanation of the interpretation helps :)

I'm not sure what is different in my thinking for this question. I've watched and read the description but cannot connect it the same way mentally for some reason.

/*____________________ */

How I'm reading this and understanding it, the 'for' makes this like a chain.

Ind Fre -> (ROL -> SI)

Ind Fre (necessary) -> ROL(sufficient)

ROL (necessary) -> SI (sufficient)

Meaning, if ROL is required 'FOR' SI to be true and to remove ROL, the chain breaks; thus Individual Freedom cannot connect with Social Integrity.

Is there a month membership option?🙏

The video seems to indulge in leaps of logic that undermine 'thinking through' options. The video's choice and explanations seem to lack steady application

Here is how I am interpreting it.

(few 50) & (dup 25%) --> funded

contrapose

(few 50) or (dup 25%) --> funded

translating to

(more 50) or (dup less 25%) --> funded

since we know (dup less 25%) it must be (more 50)

But I do have a question regarding the combination of a few 50 and dup 25.

Are these supposed to be read as (few50 AND dup25) as a together conditional instead of as (few 50) & (dup 25%) single conditionals?

In statistical analysis, we would have to find a beta (β) regression to standardize the weighting. I wouldn't be surprised if the formation of LSAC weighting would be similar in this cycle to create a benchmark for future cycles