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

Can Q4. be

50a + 10yrCO -> Support MF ?

@Cee🦋 I realized the same thing for msyelf. It's important to go back to your note/ earlier in the less where it says The idea immediately following the logical indicator is the necessary condition or he idea immediately following the logical indicator is the sufficient condition. I was getting confused why i was getting it wrong to until I noticed him breaking it down this way. I think they should provide an addtional video in terms of how to solve it/break it down the way he explains it which is more effective visually. That's why he adds 1 or 2 above those indicators.

so If I am... -> I must be ... ?

If I am a cat -> I must be a mammal

can #3 be thought of in this way?

1. nation that has retaliatory force vs nation that has a greater retaliatory force 

2. which maintains maximum deterrence from aggression by other nations

3. nation that has a greater retaliatory force 

Not important, but inside family joke here "Who are they?" lol. Hits big