So for 10, would you say that it's okay to translate to;

resident hp-coffee--m -> 5mins+

For number two, is it okay if I viewed it as;

Rule: NC -> /A

Exception: +4weeks

Therefore, I was able to conclude that if there are no other cats there waiting for longer than four weeks, then Mittens is available.

Not sure if my explanation made sense, but I was able to get the same result. #feedback

UPDATE: I realized that "if" indicates that +4weeks should be my sufficient to /available.

15) We conclude that Qarth will not decline. Why can we not conclude that revolution will not follow?

For 13, we previously did I -> M -> C. We could chain the three together, especially since Mixed was used for both Increasing and led to cast. Why is it that they're seperated here?

I need to learn to trust my gut more. I chose C originally but then BR E.

I chose E first but then changed to C on BR ): Why do you think I did this? Also, how can I detect when something is context or premise?

For 1.2:

Would it still be the same if I translated it back to English as: If one is swimming, then they are not allowed in this fishing lake. Vise versa: If one is allowed at this fishing lake, then they are not swimming.

I had originally chose E, but I second-guessed myself and switched to D ):

I think another way you could probably see how B wouldn't weaken the argument is because B just restates what is already said in the argument. In the author's support, he mentions that hiccups were experienced by many (so it accounts that not all had those symptoms) victims of the Ebola virus which is what B is saying. B says that not all victims of Ebola had hiccups. Hope this logic helps!

Getting this one right boosted the confidence I needed

The reason I got this wrong is because I confused the conclusion. I thought the first sentence was the argument. How can I differentiate this next time?

Can someone explain how the negation of "/explain H and C -> /explain basics" translates to "/explain H and C AND explain basics"? Wouldn't the contrapositive just go back to the original answer? #feedback

Okay, so I was so confused at first but after further reviewing, I'm going to share my thought process behind this in hopes it helps others confused.

Based on the argument, the author concludes by saying that snoring is the CAUSE for damage in throats. The premises talks about the correlation between snoring and abnormalities. So, like many of you (hopefully), I viewed that as saying that abnormalities could also be the reasoning behind the damage in throats because of the correlation between abnormalities and snoring. However, going back to the conclusion, we find that the correlation in this argument is essentially irrelevant because the author saying SNORING is the [only] CAUSE for damage.

Therefore, (E), strengthens our argument because what it does is eliminates our alternative explanation we could have had that the abnormalities are the cause of snoring. By removing the possibility that the abnormalities cause snoring, (E) strengthens the conclusion that snoring is the cause of the damage in throats.

Hope this explanation helps!

So whereas in MC, MSS, PAI, MBT, where are relying purely on what we are given and not making assumptions, in RRE we are required to make assumptions? I think this is what's confusing me more because I trained my brain to only use the information given and not let my biases/assumptions interfere with the questions but now I have to? Someone please explain how I can get better with this section.

Please tell me I am not the only one struggling with this section of questions. I feel like I did better on MC, MSS, PAI, and MBT, but this section.....