“Good hunters can kill prey that weigh up to half their body weight.”

diagrammed as:

Good hunter → kill prey up to 1/2 body weight

But I don’t understand why that’s a valid one-way conditional.

The sentence say good hunters can kill prey up to half their body weight. It seems like it’s describing a possibility, not a guaranteed outcome with the word "can"

So What exact logical rule justifies turning this sentence into Good hunter → ( … )?

This was also very baffling to me. But I think Choice C doesn’t justify the conclusion because the rule says she should not buy the artwork if she is buying it only as an investment. “Merely” meaning only. In choice C, she likes the vase’s shape and color. That means she wants it for its intrinsic qualities. She also thinks it may become desirable to other collectors. So she has two reasons: intrinsic value and investment value. Because she has an intrinsic reason, she is not buying it only as an investment. The rule is violated only when investment is the sole reason. In C, it is not the sole reason. That’s why C does not justify saying she should not buy it.

Can anyone help me understand Q5 why the stripped down sentence " that there is a relationship" is not an predicate-object? Just like Q3, where 'Billboards are the basis of our business' is an object of "declared," isn't "concluded" the same structure?

In both:

The that-clause completes the verb.

and you can ask: Declared what? Concluded what?

So why is it that for Q5 it's labeled as a modifier?

I really struggled with Question 1 and 4. This is for those that are similar to me and for my better understanding.

For Question 1, I wrote,

Premise: Blue eyes are largely genetic.

Conclusion: Therefore, most blue-eyed people have blue-eyed relatives.

This premise does NOT increase the likelihood of the conclusion.

Because:

• Even if a trait is genetic, it may skip generations.

• Relatives may not express the trait.

• Genetic determination does not guarantee family resemblance patterns like that.

So the genetics claim does not strongly increase the likelihood (the truth) of the precise pattern described whereas;

Premises:

1. Most blue-eyed people have blue-eyed relatives.

2. Most non-blue-eyed people don’t have blue-eyed relatives.

Conclusion:

Blue eyes are largely determined by genetics.

This premises increase the likelihood of the conclusion because if a trait consistently runs in families, that makes a genetic explanation more probable.

For Question 4, I wrote

Premises:

1. He knows that doing what is not permitted without first seeking permission is wrong.

Conclusion:

He knows he did something wrong

I didn't know where to place what turned out to be the 2nd premise: The kid took a cookie from the forbidden jar without permission.

Premise 1:

The kid took a cookie from the forbidden jar without permission.

He did something not permitted. Premise 1 alone was not enough to support the conclusion. Let's say he took a cookie without permission. But suppose he thinks it's not wrong. Then I cannot conclude "He knows he did something wrong." This action alone did not support the conclusion.

Premise 2:

He knows that doing what is not permitted without permission is wrong.

He knows the rule. But Premise 2 alone also was not enough to support the conclusion. Let's say he knew taking cookies without permission is wrong. But from this sentence I cannot know if he did take a cookie. The claim only confirms he knows the rule. Knowing the rule alone does not support the conclusion: "He knows he did something wrong."

The Conclusion: "He knows he did something wrong."

This was about his self-knowledge. Not just that something was wrong. Not just that he knows rules. But that he knows his action was wrong.

Now when I supposed BOTH are true and combined:

1. He took a cookie without permission.

2. He knows that taking things without permission is wrong.

Only then did it support the conclusion and made sense to say "He knows he did something wrong." He did something wrong and knew actions of that type are wrong.