how important is it to really identify the names of these arguments do y'all think?

is there not a mistake in this explanation? when he writes "Similar to (A) and (B), we can move on as soon as we recognize that (C) has costs outweighing the benefits." even though right above he writes "While (B) illustrates the principle of cost-benefit, it lands on the benefits outweighing the costs." am i missing something here?

I am not entirely clear on why we know the second half is the main conclusion, and not an example supporting first statement

what makes something different from a sub-conclusion versus a statement? i got this correct, but only poe, in my head this is actually a sub-conclusion because there is evidence to support it?

@LiviaLSAT like political structures don't bring about ecological or climate factors so why would the arrows go both ways

i am still confused why you know that its a bi-conditional relationship, maybe need to find that lesson to review.... but anyone else lost here?

reducing class size (thus) hiring unqualified teachers would improve the achievements of any students completely negates the argument no? i am so lost on how to make sure d is wrong here

@LiviaLSAT i went hunting, its resolve reconcile explain if anyone else was curious ... i do think it would be helpful to restate full names

what is an rre question .... these acronyms are killing me

i got e correct , but once i watched the video it is much more compelling that if we were to negate c that it would genuinely shatter the argument... i know that it doesn't go by the rulebook of structure etc etc but it is quite annoying that if you do the negate rule e is actually way weaker and c would make a ton more sense

i am so hopeless at lawgic i just don't cant map these correctly to save my life

it is just as possible that the actor did have a copy of hamlet as a spectator was obsessed with a certain actor... the only way to choose this answer is with outside knowledge of 17th century printing habits, which goes against everything we have learned about outside knowledge? idk this one seems like a stretch to me

this was for sure hardest in the set imo...

should i press show question and try myself before watching video or does that reinforce bad habits since i havent learned concept yet?

i am a little confused about "necessary" indicating that future success -> acquire fundamental knowledge. would it not be a group 2 indicator meaning that the word following is the necessary condition? thus the relation should be swapped?

this is happening to me! in the u.s. on a macbook pro chrome, happens everytime. i try to watch a video, tried turning off ads, using private browser, etc. not sure what to do

does the video just no play for anyone else

for question 1. why is none not a group 4 indicator?

this whole explanation feels counter to everything we have learned so far, since he is using outside knowledge the entire time. Ins't the whole thing that we don't apply what we know but only what we are given and the form of the argument?

would it not be easier to just memorize that if you are negating "some" than you always go to 0, if you negate "all" its always going to be "some"?

so how do we know whether all is implying intersection or group 1 suffient?

some implies not all ... i cannot understand another way around that

@DouglasNeumeyer lit ty

for question two i dont understand how to know to put well trained on the right side of the arrow

i am getting all of these right just by chaining them together intuitively. i haven't been following the group 1,2,3,4 indicator rules because i feel like they intuitively make sense to me but i am scared that i am messing myself up for when they get more complex? do i need to really need to be identifying which word the conditional indicator is in if i can intuit how it functions in a sentence and apply the rule without thinking?