Something is missing in my foundational understanding here. I’ve gotten these questions wrong, and I’m not sure if it’s because I’m struggling to translate into “lawgic” once conjunctions were introduced—or when the conjunctions are negated.

Maybe I need to memorize the conditional indicators more thoroughly. I know the sufficient condition goes on the left side of the arrow and the necessary condition goes on the right, but when these practice questions come up, I keep second-guessing myself and end up flipping them. Am I overcomplicating this, or am I just misreading the statements?

I wasn’t having trouble translating into logic before these extra elements got added into the equation (no pun intended) lol.

@SuperMage This makes a lot more sense to me! Thank you!

1. Disney Vacation Club: Is the strongest argument because it has definitive premises-- propitiation to Mickey Mouse or prostrating before Goofy's alter--- that support the conclusion that, so it leaves nearly no room for Walt to have received Genie+ pass other than the 2 options that were given.

2. Tigers: It is still strong, but not as strong as the Disney example. The conclusion that "Not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet" is supported by an example of how the claim is true--tigers are dangerous and can cause injuries to people.

3. Trash Bin: It is an argument because it has reasonable claims to support the conclusion. However, the premises are not as strong because they leave room for other reasons as to why the defendant, Mr. Fat Cat, could have been perched on the counter licking his paw. There are numerous reasons, which we can argue, as to why the defendant was in that incriminating position above the "crime scene".

Tiger Analogous 1: Most successful women only date partners that are equally, if not more successful than themselves. For instance, a study at the University of Michigan concluded that 80% women who go on to receive their graduate degrees end up marrying partners who have their graduate degrees or a professional equivalent.

I am still confused by questions 3. I understand that both are technically stating claims, but they don't provide any support to one another. To me, the 2nd half of the sentence seems like that could be used as support for the first sentence. Therefore the initial sentence is a conclusion.

Can someone please explain this like you would to a 5 year old. It's not clicking for me.