What helped me surprisingly, was taking the contrapositive of the statement before I take the actual translation. For whatever reason, it helped me a lot to do that before working backwards to the actual translation.

So for example, for question 4, instead of immediately reasoning "oh, internally consistent scientific theory → plausible", I said: "Okay, after reading this statement, this means that if I don't have an internally consistent scientific theory, then it wouldn't be plausible. But, if it was an internally consistent scientific theory, then it would be! So that means that internally scientific theory goes first and then plausible goes next":

internally consistent scientific theory → plausible

Also, visually writing out the statement helped me a lot. Especially if I put a member in the subset to help solidify my understanding even more.

I hope this helps a little bit! It took me some time to understand the concept myself.

@AryanNooshi

I also thought that.

I think the assumption is still correct because there's no actual clarification on what rights those presently living individuals have to art, so you can really make it up. I think just as long as it makes sense and you understood the comparative its okay to assume that.

Okay so I think I'm probably thinking about this weirdly. But I liken this lesson on arguments to science. In that, the premise is an independent variable to your argument (or experiment) while your conclusion is the dependent variable that cannot occur without the independent variable. The dependent variable can change of course depending on your independent variable. But it cannot be different. For the dependent variable to occur you NEED the independent variable if that makes any sense. I hope I'm not thinking of this wrong lol.