When referring to a noun, will the "which" always follow the noun it refers to? Or is it not about proximity in a similar way to the subject and predicate lesson?

The premises in the Disney argument make it so that the conclusion MUST be true. It's a guarantee, it's locked in. The premise of the tiger argument makes the conclusion more likely to be true. The trash can argument premises establish that the conclusion COULD be true, but not that it MUST BE or even that it likely is. There's the most room for holes and doubt in between.

Question 4 is so yucky. Obviously, I'm going to use the Most Before All form because that's what we were just taught. How am I supposed to know that's not the relationship to focus on?

I understand for number 5 that just saying "chess is not the most ..." eliminates the possibility of a tie and thus is not a proper negation. However, for number 4, "small animals cannot move more rapidly than large animals" doesn't seem to eliminate the possibility of a tie in my mind in the same way. Did anyone do anything similar and does this make sense?

#help

Is there ever going to be an instance where we get in trouble with details such as "more than" 5 minutes late? Because, technically, if Melissa is exactly 5 minutes late, she isn't more than 5 minutes late. She also isn't less than 5 minutes late as set up in the contrapositive.

So, the sufficient condition is the "trigger" to allow us to say something about the larger, necessary condition (superset).

#help

Can questions 3 technically be broken down into two Lawgic statements (More cost -> buy less and More cost -> use less)? Does the word "and" bind them together in such a way that they can't/shouldn't be split? I can see that for the sake of time, it makes sense to put them together but am I breaking any rule if I happen to split them up?