Why does Question 6 allow for us to infer something is true about a new concept? I feel like in previous questions we were told to ignore new concepts because we cannot infer from the stimulus they would be correct.

How can we assume that "not uncomfortable" is comfortable. I know it makes sense, but I remember a lesson where it was not accurate to do this?

How am I supposed to practice like this and attempt to understand mapping if I will not have time for this on the test? The mapping for this took like 3 minutes, thats more than I should spend on the question right?

Should the statement "for, since, and because, introduce premises and you will find the conclusion present in the same sentence" just be completely disregarded- like not too much thought put into it.

I have 2 questions-

1. How can we tell that the support is strong in this? Just because the premises support the conclusion?

2. This may be getting ahead of myself- but how do we know that number 2. and 3. of the premises are the only options? Is it because it says "members" and then "all other members"?

I just want to make sure I am not missing anything.

How do we get to that formal logic rule? I do not understand how it can be almost predicted what the rule should look like, before we get to that rule