Would love to try!

Can I have access? Thank you in advance!

I understood the stimulus by putting it into these terms.

A (Perception) --> NOT B (Defined as...) because B can occur without A.

To put it in other terms imagine it said Being an NBA Player cannot define or be sufficient for being a basketball player because there are non-NBA players who see themselves as NBA players.

The flaw here is it assumes NBA --> NOT Basketball player just because you can be a basketball player without being in the NBA. In reality you can be a JV, Varisty, College player and be a basketball player. Just because you can get to B without A doesn't mean B doesn't lead to A

@chuddychad420 Glass does not have a precise freezing point; rather, it has what is known as a glass transition temperature, typically a range of a few hundred degrees Celsius.

I used that sentence as evidence it was hundreds higher. If we know 350 is the lowest it can be heated, and the range is a few hundred degrees then it makes sense.

I understood why D was correct by putting it in this context

Imagine saying that " if a successful flying machine was made it would prove that machines can fly or flying doesn't involve flapping wings. Either case the conception of how birds work would change."

Well airplanes do exist, and the flaw here is that the mechanism of how the planes work isn't being considered (flying with engines). Considering planes fly with engines (not flapping wings) would weaken a conclusion that this would impact how birds work.

Same reasoning applies here. By considering that chess-computers wouldn't take a human approach, that means the mechanism is different. Hence the argument is flawed since we can't say the concept of human intelligence would change.

@DeborahAdel I think it's just there way of making it clear that they are negating the statement /(...). So it will look clearer

@ep2127 Hey I'm somewhat near the area and am interested in studying. Let me know if you're inteerested