YOU'RE THE GOAT BRAD!

@breezyprabahar944 replying for reference!

Huge! Got it right! (Over 3 minutes though but we won't focus on that :D)

LETS GO 5/5 BABY!

@Paige This technique helped a lot! Thank you!

5/5

@Paige Thanks!

@laurenstudies "or" is in Group 3 that's why. See the group 3 lesson in "Conditional and Set Logic"

I'm getting cooked. What happened??

@Conner Kline Hi Connor! Thank you for the explanation. Do you recommend students doing the notes of the conditional statements in lawgic at this stage or should we practice doing it in our head? Thank you!

@MRod Does anyone know what our times should be now? The monster one had me on that problem for 8 mins LOL

2/3. The Monster question got me

I got tricked on question 6

@Le Castille Imagine we had N and O right? So if we know that EITHER O or N weren't adopted we can infer that M wasn't adopted! This is what the contrapositive is saying.

Since we know that they both need to be adopted together then we know that is the condition for M to be adopted as well.

@JamesVartian Do we get free lunch?

I probably would keep the arrows on the same line to avoid confusion but one question I have if anyone can answer is wouldn't splitting on the necessary condition still indicate that one event could happen and not the other?

"M is adopted, then N and O are adopted."

Wouldn't splitting indicate that either N or O are adopted? When instead are trying to say that both have to be adopted?

@mibuch commenting for reference

5/5. These seemed a lot easier than the last chaining questions but still happy with the progress

Struggled again because I applied my own logic (aka "Why can't inspired musical performances and sophisticated listeners be independent?"). Need to learn to take what is stated as truth.

Please burn question number 2 thanks

Welp back to the books

5/5 LETS GO!

@Paige replying to come back later!

5/5!