@HimajaReddy Adding on to why E is false, could you also use the following reasoning?

We know that Zack's offers half-priced coffee on days poetry is scheduled. So:

• poetry being scheduled is sufficient, but not necessary

Therefore, Zack's could technically still offer half-priced coffee on other days too, meaning that we have no way of guaranteeing it is not offered on some Wednesday's, even if there is no scheduled poetry.

I feel like this can be a useful tool to simplify when its a super long question with multiple sufficiencies. But on Question #4, when its short and simple enough, going to the trouble of "kicking up" one singular word in journalism into the domain, just overcomplicates it. That question is easy enough to understand on its own, like we have been doing in past exercises, so why make it more confusing than it needs to be?

The same can be said for Question #1.

Could you not also say that "plant" is simply a modifier to the clause "life cannot survive"?

Here we identify plant life as being a sufficiency, moreover one that can be kicked up in the domain. But why wouldn't plant just be modifying the statement that life cannot survive? Well what kind of life, oh, plant life.

Are they both correct usages of these techniques, since a lot of these interpretations are simply subjective to provide you with tools to better understand a question, or is one more right than the other for a particular reason?

So using "but" or "even if" is essentially the same as the conjunction indictor "and" as far as grammar is concerned, it is just a more specific way of saying it, because it implies contrast between the clauses.

@AlexandraPolidora Try not to have tunnel vision following the indicator words - just think about this one logically.

The only myths that have survived are the ones that eventually got written down.

We can infer from that statement that there doesn't exist a survived myth that was not written down. Therefore, being eventually written down is a necessity in order for a myth to survive. However, there may exist myths that didn't survive that were still written down, which is why surviving is only sufficient.

"Myths that were written down are only oral myths."

In this case, it would be flipped and oral myths would be the necessity.

Also, "the only" is one of the indicators for a sufficiency clause. You may have missed it because its the last one listed.

It's been tricky at times to distinguish between the predicate object and modifier. For example on Q4 I initially thought the winds were the object but they turned out to be a modifier.

The main pattern that I have recognized, is if the predicate verb is acting on the following object, then it is an predicate object. So in Q2 when Wegener developed the concept, the concept is the object because it is being developed. However in Q4, the winds are actually acting in reverse on the verb. The formation isn't triggering the winds, they are triggered by the winds. That key word by shows me that the following object is modifying the verb. Likewise, on the last skill builder, the physicists were puzzled by the existence of black holes. It's easy to think:

physicists = subject

were puzzled = predicate verb

the existence = object,

but the word "by" signifies to me the existence is acting upon them being puzzled, therefore it is a modifier. It is only an object when it is necessary to grammatically complete the sentence, which is always going to be when the verb is acting upon the following object and therefore incomplete without it.

Other key words are the "is" before triggered, and the "were" before puzzled. Those signify it is a complete thought and therefore not reliant on the following word as an object.

Does anyone have any input?

@ShortBee It took me a long time to figure this out, because structurally, they seem almost identical.

My best guess is because if you look at the phrase "likes to drink", you couldn't grammatically say "The cat likes" without the second part "to drink". So those three words have to be tied together as a predicate.

When you look at "fail to kill", technically you could say The antibiotics fail. The modifier, "to kill", is necessary to explain what it fails at and complete the thought. Remember sometimes we do need the modifiers to fully get the point across. The difference lies in the fact that 'to kill" is required to modify the meaning, but it is still grammatically correct without it. You need to explain what the cat likes to do though, otherwise that sentence is incomplete. So "to drink" can't be a modifier.

@RyanKelly Are you from the future?

@jjmaiteh I interpreted it as it is "furthering" the evidence in the premise.

The Disney argument is the strongest because it is the most organized, covers all angles, and leaves no room for speculation. It provides two possibilities, and then clearly states option A is not true, so option B would have to be true.

The tiger argument is the second strongest. While on the surface it is a valid premise and conclusion, it is phrased more broadly. You can argue about the definition of "suitable". If you live in a mega mansion and the aggressive animal is kept in a cage, then technically an aggressive tiger could be suitable for you. I would say that is the main flaw. You could argue about how not all tigers are aggressive, but even then the fact that some are would support the conclusion of not all mammals being suitable pets. I think the flaw lies in the broadness of the conclusion and the ability to pick it apart where the premise doesn't support it. The Disney argument is more uniformly true and specific.

Then the final argument is clearly the least strong because the evidence is massively speculative and just overall weak.