they'll never see this one coming (me chucking a ball at a kid)

the answers felt so weak making it easier to quickly choose

The way I understood the stim was they the newpaper calls out the false claim but doesn't go into depth why its wrong.

my thinking was of course over time the sighting have increases, why? They are being recorded over time meaning people are recording them more than before. Especially in saying nothing has changed via climate change.

not hard to chain. It was mostly "How do we know that?"

confusing but then i thought it's still a HOME. (crying)

"I don't see how you can hate from outside the club, you can't even get in!"

got it right in 35sec, although didn't completely understand the question i think

Got it right immediately but in the BR second guessed myself bc it felt too easy

4/5 I felt good, saw my easy mistake. Took note of it

got during the BR, really leaning into BR. First going based on speed versus BR having time to break it down and not rely on first pass.

I got this one right away just by thinking " How do we know this?". I thought C was the most reasonably sounding answer on the actual and blind, YAY.

I had to use caveman language, it helps.

Medicine bad, No medicine bad-er

=

Gov. int bad, No gov. int bad-er yayyy

Correlation vs. Explanation - not the same thing

• Correlation: smoking increases chance of cancer

• Explanation: Smoking damages your lungs due to the chemicals being inhaled

Wait so in thinking abt this one it's like saying 1 grown cali almond, 1 PRODUCE lable fruit tree = somehow this is an anomaly of this cali grown almond being the single produce fruit tree? The chances are low especially since they don't clarify it being specifically the almond but just produce in general.

Wait I think I might be getting it. Is it these arguments are weak because they're open to multiple interpretation. Such as earlier in the lesson, the connection between everyone who plays violin to specifically the ones in the philharmonic. Or the produce on being that produce could be other things such as Veggies and not Almonds? The working of Most or Some further weakens the argument but also the context to? Of making connection between two conditionals?

The way I got it right because I was like "THERE ARE OTHER HOUSES TO BE SORTED INTO"

These are getting to me just like Negating Quantifiers

Would q4 only be valid if it had said People who are commercial airline pilots... Most people who can perform..., then couldn't you make a valid conclusion?

Verbally it reads

Conditional: If A then B, Thing of A is Thing of B

Contrapositive: If A then B, Thing is not B then Thing is not A

Conditional Chaining: If A then B then C, If A then C

Some before all: Some of A is in B and B is in C, therefore Some of A is in C

Most before All: Most of A is in B and B is in C, therefore Most of A is in C

Two Mosts: Most of A is in B | Most of A is in C, therefore some of B is in C

Is this correct? Wording might not be correct, lmk.

A ←s→ B → C

In the thinking of nesting dolls, some of A is in B and some of B is in C, Therefore some of A is in C?

Q2 ?

No alphabets are not phonetic = All alphabets are phonetic

Q3? No = All ?

IS this a correct negation?

You can be a Jedi but not be able to use the Force

@caelesalad That's what I was thinking too

does <-> just mean And? having still sufficient on left and necessary on right