I diagrammed like this:

/used safely elsewhere for over a year OR /show safety at the factory ---> /ANP

CONTRAPOSITIVE:

ANP ---> used safely elsewhere for over a year AND show safety at the factory

Can I get some clarification as to why J.Y. does:

ANP ---> used safely elsewhere for over a year OR show safety at the factory

it gave me a brain aneurysm - but got it right eventually

What if everyone on the whole planet is a friend to Tanya?

I would say that D is not irrelevant, but it even weakens the argument because if these telephone companies cannot provide with fiber-optic through their telephone services to those remote areas, then you have those owned cable companies having a whole market for themselves which cannot be threatened by fiber-optic.

I chose D at first and then switched to A - my reasoning was that Carl makes no mention of "accessibility", he is sort of silent on that...

@MateoAgudelo Just watched Kevin's version - he says that Dodd's lack of contestation to the lineage claim set forth by Chai indicates that he tacitly agrees with Chai on that, but would that not be an over-stretch? Like, we would be assuming that silence equates to assent.

I second-guessed and after having picked B went with A because B talked about lineage and I did not see any mention of it in Dodd's statement...

I need clarification: stories that are well-written can be somber and pessimistic, is that tantamount to stories that are somber and pessimistic can be well-written??

QUESTION: in question number 3, the answer says SOME PILOTS ARE BLIND, but we agreed that some could go to the extent of covering ALL, so that would not be negating the initial statement

Question: doesn't FAMOUS <--SOME--> SA equal to /FAMOUS <--SOME--> SA ; if not all skilled artists are famous, then there are some skilled artists that are indeed famous... or isn't that so?

For Q3: the answer says most golden retrievers are abled - but the stimulus says required; there is a nuanced difference between being able to do something and being required to have the ability to do it.

Small animals can move more rapidly than large animals can.

SA --> RLA 

NEGATE: /(SA --> RLA) ; SA <-s-> /RLA ; it is not the case that all small animals can move more rapidly than large animals can ; not all small animals can move rapidly than large animals ; some small animals cannot move rapidly than large animals - some small animals move less rapidly or at an equal speed than large animals do.

As per the last Skill Builder: NOT MOST = HALF OR FEWER THAN HALF

Therefore: half or fewer than half of New Yorkers ride the train - not most New Yorkers ride the train.

NYer -m-> /TRAIN

Can this be applicable to "any" and "every"?

I hate these ones - they take so much time.

Doess this apply to 'several' or 'many' or a few'?

it took me five minutes sos

So this is helpful for identifying the principle sort of questions, right?

@JuneCline I thought likewise.

Why would I be made to believe that spellcasters are wizards?

Retirees love collecting dildos.

Are we to assume that police officers are competent at their job?

For #5: regarding the initial claim, I went like this:

Water of Life --> BG's Rituals

Thinking of WL as a subset of the things used in BG's Rituals; it appears to me that the verb "to be" ineluctably functions as a first group indicator, by that meaning that the attribute of the sentence serves the role of neccessary condition, whereas the subject serves the role of sufficient condition.

All cats ARE (to be) mammals.

C --> M

By ruling out the others, I got to A - but A makes no sense to me.

Tom's recipe is easy to follow for most people ; Tom's recipe is easy to follow for the majority of people (<50%) as opposed to the minority of people

A- Identify the entities being compared: majority of people vs non-majority of people.

B- Identify the thing being compared on: the easiness of Tom's recipe to follow for people

C- Identify the winner: Most people can follow Tom's recipe