Since this is a Exception MSS. Would treating it as a Merely Consistent/Weaken be a quicker approach?

Since I know we will have 4 "right/supporting" answers then I can simply hunt for a MC/Weaken instead which in turn would shorten my time.

Unless I'm making some serious flaw in my reasoning. #feedback

"Athena likes head scratches. All cats are fluffy and Athena is a cat. Thus, Athena is fluffy. All fluffy animals like head scratches."

The order of sentences in the stimulus is probably meant to cause that confusion.

Let's break down each sentence into Lawgic to help with that.

"Athena likes head scratches."

A statement of fact we have no further information.

"All cats are fluffy and Athena is a cat."

C → F

(a)C

---

(a)F

Conditional logic concludes that Athena is fluffy.

"Thus, Athena is fluffy"

This is explicitly stating the conclusion we've already established previously.

"All Fluffy Animals like head scratches."

F → H

(a)F

---

(a)H

Conditional Logic concludes that Athena (who is fluffy) will like head scratches.

This is ALSO explicitly stated in the first sentence.

So the chained lawgic is: (a)C → (a)F → (a)H

In other words: Sub Premise → Sub Conclusion/Major Premise → Major Conclusion

So the main conclusion is that Athena likes head scratches.

Hope this helped clear things up!

Negation vs Negate Necessary Statement

We will stick with question #2 to keep it consistent.

Stimulus: No one can eat a hamburger without drinking a beer.

Shorthand: No H without B

This results in a lawgic as:

H → B (in every instance that someone eats a burger they MUST drink a beer)

When we say "Negate" we are saying we want to find exception to that rule.

H ←s→ /B (There are some who can have a burger and not have a drink of beer).

H and /B (At least one person who eats a hamburger and does not drink a beer)

Both of these statements/lawgic is directly contradicting the rule above (H > B). Hence they are negating the previous claim.

If we simply negate necessary

H → /B

Then the above statement would simply read along the lines of (in every instance of eating a hamburger you cannot drink a beer). This was not negation of the claim (looking for an exception to a rule) but rather a brand new contrary claim to the previous claim.

---

Now if you're simply asking how to read negation and negate necessary/sufficient in question #2.

No H without B (can be read as either)

(Negation) H (Group 3: Negate Sufficient) B

or

(Group 4: Negate Necessary) H (Negation) B

Both options are valid and it's down to preference, both are extrapolated further in my previous comment.

Going to answer both questions to the best of my abilities.

# 2 Can be interpreted as a negation necessary or negation sufficient statement. Either can be applicable and depends solely on the reader.

Stimulus: No one can eat a hamburger without drinking beer.

Shorthand: No H without B

One can eat hamburger = H

drinking beer = B

Option 1: Group 4: no, none, not both, cannot

You pick either idea, then negate that idea, then make that idea the necessary condition. The other idea is the sufficient condition.

() → /()

H → /(/B)

H → B (Translates: If one eats a hamburger one must drink a beer)

H ←s→ /B (Negation: Some people can eat a burger and not drink a beer).

H and /B (Negation: At least one person can eat a burger and not drink a beer).

Option 2: Group 3: or, unless, until, without

Pick either idea, then negate that idea, then make that idea the sufficient condition. The other idea is the necessary condition.

/() > ()

/(/H) → B

H → B (Translates: If one eats a hamburger one must drink a beer)

H ←s→ /B (Negation: Some people can eat a burger and not drink a beer).

H and /B (Negation: At least one person can eat a burger and not drink a beer).

I kept both options as if H then B for consistency sake but you could've chosen to flip since both options allow that.

You would've simply gotten the contra positive initially (which is essentially saying the same thing) and then done the same negation methods

Most: Greater than 50%

Negating "Most" means: Less than or equal to 50%

Many: More than a some

Some: Lower boundary of 1 up to 100%. (which includes the less than 50%).

None: 0 or 0% which is less than 50%

Few: At least "Some" definition & less than "most "definition.

So yeah any of those options could be true for "not most", which is probably why it's simpler to write /(x -m> y).

Yes we can write it that way as shown in the written explanation above.

The only difference I can tell is ease of understanding.

Original: D → F

Translated: All dogs are friendly.

Negated: /(D → F)

Translated: "Not all dogs are friendly."

Translated: It's not the case that all dogs are friendly.

Negated: D ←s→ /F

Translated: Some dogs are not friendly.

Trap: D → /F

Translated: All dogs are not friendly.

The other reply has a good substitute.

Personally I rely on Subset → Superset , if → then, cause → effect.

At the 5:30 mark the tutor goes over this point.

Basically once you've gotten enough practice you'll be able to make the inference regarding the contra of the chain without having to explicitly write it out.

personal opinion

At this point of my studies I find that writing out the chain and the contra of the chain is worth the extra few steps just for visual clarity.

Chain:

IM→GS→SL→R (original chain)

/R→/SL→/GS→/IM (contra)

I'm already assuming that they will try to mix up necessary vs sufficient arguments and the one that will easily mess me up is the contra if I don't have a visual aid.

Original Stimulus:

"All cats are animals since all cats are mammals, which are a subset of animals."

Cats: C

Animals: A

Mammals: M

Sufficient → Necessary

Subset → Superset

All: Indicates Sufficient

C → A since C → M, which M → A

C → M → A

This is going to get a bit wordy so please bare with me.

"What im saying is why do I keep assigning the None to Americans. What I think I see is that the none is the indicator word and it cannot act as an indicator word and a negation at the same time."

You are correct, about indicator word and negation.

The stimulus is: "None of the Americans attended the dictator's party."

Which contextually is

Conditional Indicator: None (Group 4)

Subject: Americans (A)

Predicate: attend the dictator's party (D)

So we put the subject and predicate in a sufficient necessary condition

A → D (or D → A)

Then we apply the Group 4 Translation rule.

A → /D (or D → /A)

Here you might notice with either option we will get the contrapostive of the other. It the reason why this rule is so powerful. This is also the reason why we don't have to "keep assigning the None to Americans".

The original stimulus:

Students are cited as "late" only if they arrive more than five minutes past the last ring of the homeroom bell.

Kumar Arrived 17min after the last ring of homeroom bell.

Therefore, Kumar will be cited as "late".

This would translate into Lawgic as:

Late -> +5min

/+5min -> /Late (contra-positive)

(kumar) +5min

----

(kumar) Late

It follows the same as

A -> B

/B -> /A

x(B)

---

x(A)

This is not a valid Lawgic based on the previous lesson.

Remember the previous lesson we learned that:

Membership of superset is necessary for membership of subset, but not sufficient

So for Kumar we know they're inside the superset (+5min) but we don't know for SURE that they are also inside the subset ("late").

Hi, I might be mistaken, but it seems that there might be some misunderstanding (based on what we just learned).

"If an entity is in the subset, it can, but not necessarily be part of a superset. And entity could also be in the superset but doesn't have to be in the subset".

If it's a member of the subset then it guaranteed to be member of the superset (relationship between subset and superset) (rule 3 below diagram)

I think you read the review "Subset membership is sufficient for superset membership, but not necessary" and tried to reword it into something easier to digest.

If you wanted a fill in the blank version of the review:

Subset (ex:cats) membership is sufficient for superset (ex:mammals) membership, but not necessary

Subset membership (ex: cats) is NOT necessary for superset membership (ex:mammals). (i.e Lassie the dog is a member of mammals with out being a member of cats)

Superset membership (ex:mammals) is necessary for subset membership (ex:cats), but not sufficient.

Superset membership (ex:mammals) is NOT sufficient for subset membership (ex:cats). (i.e Just because Lassie is a mammal doesn't mean it's adequate requirements to be put into cats subset.)

Yup according to 7Sage it's a common trap!

Just have to mechanically look at the argument and say:

Premise: Supports a statement

Conclusion: Supported by a statement.

Argument doesn't have to be sound/good for it to BE an argument. This exercise is only asking us to parse out what the conclusion & premise are, NOT the validity or soundness of it.

This was my understanding.

We have to narrowly apply what we've been taught so far.

Premise: Supports a statement

Conclusion: Supported by a statement.

So the stimulus stated: If Max were guilty, he would not ask the police to investigate. Therefore, his asking the police to investigate shows that he is not guilty.

The first thing I look for are the indicators. In this case [Therefore] is the indicator and the conclusion is close by.

Conclusion: Therefore, his asking the police to investigate shows that he is not guilty.

Okay so IF this is the conclusion what statement is SUPPORTING it.

Premise: If max were guilty, he would not ask the police to investigate.

So basically if we paraphrased it in a convo it would go along the lines of

Person 1: "[Max] asking the police to investigate shows that he is not guilty"

Person 2: How do you support that statement? (how would you know that?)

Person 1: If Max were guilty, he would not ask the police to investigate.

Now is this a "strong" argument w/ little to no flaws...of course not. But we're not here to test the strength of the argument (at least not yet) but rather to parse out what the conclusion and the premise are.