For the second question, Lawgic confused me. I'm trying to remind myself that I must always identify conclusion & premise first because I have gotten carried away from it by going straight into Lawgic. Here's how I eventually bailed myself out:

Identify the conclusion: Therefore, the vote to grant the Chancellor emergency powers will not pass.

Why won't this vote pass?: Because Amidala's assasination failed. (that's what the passage is insinuating)

What has that got to do with anything?: Amidala has a speech to give but cannot deliver her speech unless the attempt to assassinate her fails.

Why is this speech important to this situation?: Because The vote to grant Chancellor Palpatine emergency powers will not pass if Senator Amidala delivers her speech

If "...speech" is the sufficient condition, not a necessary condition for the vote not passing.

Here's how I approached it:

If qualified for suspect class then must be immutable

SC --> I

Not immutable? Then not qualified for suspect class

/I

---

/SC

Hope this helps!

The key phrase here is "than to". Note this is not the same implication as "than"

Consider these:

Some cultivars of corn are much more closely related to sorghum than they are to other cultivars of corn. - This asks: which of these is some cultivars of corn more closely related to? Sorghum or other cultivars of corn?"

Some cultivars of corn are much more closely related to sorghum than other cultivars of corn. - Now this asks a different question: which is more closely related to sorghum? Some cultivars of corn or other cultivars of corn.

Our video asks the first question using "than to"

Hope this helps!

I hear you but the first sentence talks about access. They can now access the Genie+ fast pass which means it is available to them but can only be in their possession if they carry out certain prerequisites. The way the pass appears (downloaded, printed etc) cannot be our point to argue because it says "they can download" if they so please. But then we have our next sentence, which is necessary as seen in "all other members must...".

What is called into question in the stimulus is the journey from being eligible to access the Genie+ pass to actually having the pass in your possession. We're given ONLY 2 ways, goats or prostrate, takes you from "able-to-access-Disney-member" to "Genie+ pass holder". It is clear that Walt did not prostrate, vehemently so. The only way he could have a pass handy is the second option, goats!

Hope to see you in court, someday! haha

For the Disney argument, we are given only 2 ways by which Walt could have access. The stimulus tells us definitively that he did not do 1 of the 2 (prostrate) so if he has access then he has to have done the other option (goats) because nothing else could grant him access. That is pretty strong!

The Tigers argument tells us that not all mammals are suitable as pets then proves it by showing one that is not suitable. If you had a mindset that all mammals were suitable as pets, the introduction of tigers as dangerous puts a hole in that. It serves its purpose of defeating the opposing idea that "all mammals are suitable as pets".

The Trash argument however is trying to tell us that Mr. Fat Cat definitely is responsible for the trash bin situation because he's on the counter and licking his paws like he does after he's eaten. First, there is no proof that he licks his paw ONLY after he's eaten. Secondly, there's no strong evidence like salmon in his mouth or paws. Thirdly, any number of other factors could have knocked the trash bin and spilled all its contents as we know that salmon was not the only thing spilled. In summary, there is no proof. The argument is asking us to infer that Fat Cat was definitely the culprit and providing evidence that is not as "definite".

I hope this helps