@JuliaWise But there is also an attempted (but failed) bridge between money and happiness in B. How could that be explained using this process, I wonder?

@paligrrl Your explanation is incredibly clear and helpful. Wow. Thank you!

Even if I get a question right, I watch the video afterward so I can make sure my reasons for getting it right/underlying thought processes map on to those of the expert. This really helps me learn!

@JuliaWise Also, in Lesson 1 - The Effectiveness of Obvious Flattery (coming up in a couple lessons), JY explains how PSA and SA questions are both similar and different - right in the beginning of the video for that lesson!

@Bruh It's also the level of strength that's required for the answer. PSAs asked us for questions that "most helps justify," which is a lower bar of strengthening than is required for SA questions. SA questions require that we literally make the argument valid, while PSA questions did not require this. Often we did make arguments valid during PSA questions, but we did not have to. I hope that helps a bit...?

So very helpful. I feel as if I am a Jedi in training who can finally start using The Force.

@JuliaWise See two lessons after this one - it explains!

What is the difference then between an MBT and a SA question?

@JuliaWise In the next video, J.Y. confirms that yes, if there are "wrong consequences/incorrect destination" in the answer, then the answer is failing the necessary condition.

If a wrong answer "goes to the wrong place," which J.Y. asserts at the end of this video is the second reason a PSAr answer can be wrong, then is that the same as "failing the necessary condition"? Trying to think ahead about how the PSAr concept ties in with sufficient and necessary assumption questions.

I fell for E initially because it's the sort of thing I would have tried to do if I were a 17th-century Shakespearean actor. I guess this is where we have to try not to read our own assumptions into the answers...!

Super nitpicky point - this first sentence is not a run-on sentence, because the two main clauses of the sentence are separated with a comma and an "and." This is a compound-complex sentence - one main clause + dependent clause, followed by an "and" and another main clause + dependent clause. Totally acceptable!

Why didn't the logical chain for this question look like this:

list --> easier <--s--> limit --> improve

Were the parentheses around (people <--s-->limit) just drawn for clarity's sake? Why the extra arrow from easier to the whole parantheses, then?

The first sentence in the stimulus was not at all difficult for me to parse, since I have myself been one of those "short-sighted car owners" who forgot to do a scheduled oil change on my car and needed an emergency oil change!

Really appreciate the diagrams.

Thank you for the diagram!

@Elideebeep Thank you so very much!!

@JuliaWise Just found this in my notes from earlier in the course: "No contrapositives for quantifiers "some" and "most"; contrapositives are just for conditional claims.

There are no contrapositives of logic involving quantifiers, am I right?

How does the passive voice factor in to conditional logic? I haven't heard it mentioned so far in any of the video explanations, but a lot of the trouble in conditional logic, especially in this lesson and others immediately surrounding, seems to stem from the fact that the agent in the sentence -- the thing actually making the action happen -- is buried in the predicate because of the passive voice.