@NoraElkhyati This is also my biggest problem, it is confusing sufficiency for necessity

I actually found it easier that

None of A are B to mean that

A → /B

When encountering a NEVER or CANNOT

A CANNOT/NEVER be B

I translate it to No A can be B

the cannot/never after the A becomes a "no" in front of A

Which just goes to

A → /B

It clicked for me from the Mario reference that the arrow cannot go the opposite way if the argument is to be vaild

Here is what the answer gives

can fly while wearing raccoon suit → Italian plumber

/(Italian plumbers) → /(fly while wearing raccoon suit)

HOWEVER IT IS INVAILD to conclude that

Italian plumber → can fly while wearing raccoon suit

If Italian plumber, then can fly while wearing raccoon suit

Which is not true, because only Luigi and Mario can fly while wearing raccoon suits

@JesseMcCarthy

I like this explanation the most, so here is like an example I came up with

It is "required"(necessary) that you have Internet to use Instagram

But it is not "enough" (sufficient) to only have the Internet to use Instagram, you also need a smart phone with battery to use Instagram lol 😅

So in this example

When I say Jesse is using Instagram

The "necessary" condition is: Jesse has Internet

Jesse using Instagram is the subset inside the circle of Jesse has Internet

However when I ask how is Jesse using the Internet

Using Instagram is sufficient (enough) but not necessary (required)

It could be the case that Jesse is using the Internet to study on 7Sage, here studying 7Sage is sufficient (enough) but also not required (necessary) of Jesse to use the Internet

So I have an example

Androids are no better than iPhones at taking photos

So this can either mean that

Androids and iPhones are equally good at taking photos

OR

Androids are worse than iPhones at taking photos