When the question states: "...many people would do so, which would improve their health", how do we justify that this presents an embedded necessary condition? Why is the interpretation of: (listed -> easier -> people <-s-> limit -> improve) flawed in this case? If its because were talking about a hipothetical, whats logic that tells us we have to make it an embedded condition?

@SamuelBates Nevermind, I think I see my mistake. "... Any pokemon that doesnt reach its full potential must have avoided training". The negation to "avoided training" is simply: "not avoided training". So any amount of training is a sufficient condition for reaching full potential. So we can say that /avoided training = well trained, in this context because being well trained will always result in not having avoided training.

Regarding question 2. "... only well trained pocemon are capable of evolving" (therefore evolve -> well trained. This is very clear). However, "Any pokemon that doesnt reach its full potential must have avoided training." (/full potential -> avoided training). I dont understand why we assume that the negated version of "avoided training" is well trained. After all, the pokemon could be somewhat trained or badly trained. Well trained is not the only option here. I believe the question is confusing negation with opposition: the same error that was highlighted in a previous module. I understand that according to the video explanation this is the most useful way to interpret the conditional, but I just can´t see the logic behind this. Can anyone explain? Thanks