cheeky b smh

What the helly

If the people who now believe Walker is guilty were already rating his performance poorly before the accusations, then their shift in belief about his ethics would not change their performance ratings. In other words, the accusations did not cause a net loss of approval, since the group that thinks poorly of him had already judged him poorly. That’s why his performance rating could remain steady despite nearly half the city thinking he’s guilty

My understanding: Almonds grown in California cannot be confirmed to be "produce in Cali.. that is designated as fruit". How would you know from "Some produce grown in California" applies to Almonds.

Thats like me saying:

Some Ferraris are made in Italy. Some cars manufactured in Italy are hypercars. Therefore, some Ferraris are considered hypercars.

That could be the case? But Lamborghini could make all the hypercars.

Most A are B, which means that some A are not B. If some As don't have B. Then how can you validly assume that some A has C.

My understanding of this is that all A have B, but just because they have B doesn't mean that A will take on C. Because it can't be confirmed that just because you have B you also have C. The key indicator is "some". A is sufficient for B but does not guarantee that B brings about C.

Can I just slap one “It’s not the case that..” on any negation lol

Sounds like you just keep the sufficient?

LOL this question was a hard read. Still got it right though