im still having a hard time determining which is the sufficient claim and which is the necessary claim. I know in a previous lesson he said that the necessary claim comes after the indicator... am i right?

I feel like question # 4contradicts what we were talking about in previous lessons. How can it be that /MP --> MC. I feel like it that were the case then the statement would be "Mesopotamian city's were the ONLY ones to not have a market place..." Because other cities could also not have market places, just like we talked about with confusing negation with opposition(opposite of hot isn't just cold). Can someone help me better understand this?

mind boggling lesson...

maybe im just tired but saying that coffee shops will have to begin selling noncoffe products OR the coffee sales will decrease, to then say that selling those noncoffee products will decrease the shoppes overall profitability is contradicting and messed me up when trying to think about this "logically".

im so confused on the difference between relative and absolute. what are the basic definitions?

I'm curious about the when we are allowed to assume things about questions. When do we know to only look at the context of the question and when to assume things about a question?

Weakest: Trash argument because it is a "hypothesis", an observation rather than proof.

Strongest: Disney, cause it is fact that Walt didn't access the pass through the premise, so the conclusion proves he had to get it another way.