"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."

@esimone98

#4: The negated sentence we're working with is, "it's not the case that some graduate level philosophy courses are available to undergraduates" i.e., "glpc are not available to undergrad" which lawgically says, glpc -> /ug Your lawgic, /glpc -> available to undergrads, reads "not glpc are available to undergrads" and there's nothing in the sentence that allows us to assume that.

5: This is a conditional statement. Conditionals are negated with "and". "If the record sells well, then you will be famous" is saying that A has to happen for B to happen (RSW->F) so we need to negate that relationship and make it so nothing is relying on anything else. This essentially leaves us with "A could happen and B could still not happen" or, "The records could sell well and you could still not be famous" (RSW and /F).

I'm not a teacher for a reason lol so I hope this helped.

@sellybean I figured the main problem was the term well-stocked but didn't understand why, so this definitely helped. Thank you.

Q6: is it possible for one sentence to support the conclusion and the other just be nonsense? I thought 6 was an argument because the second sentence seems to support the first. Was it "most well-stocked" that made it not a good premise? Sentence 3 obviously lends no support to the conclusion.