me right now b/c I didn't understand a singe thing from this whole lesson!! I have read so many explanations but I still don't get it!!

welp...at the end of the day...the day's going to end. hopefully it all clicks on a random Monday

is it correct to say in order to negate an ALL, SOME, and Conditional relationships, you have to deny only the necessary condition?

@yesterdayseeker Plzzzz explain your process for each question..

question Chain link: IMP->GS->SL->MR

ControP: /MR->/SL->/GS->/IMP

Answers Chain links:

A: /SL(sophist. listener) ->/IMP (inspired music perform.) CORRECT

B: /GS (good show) -> /MR (musical roots)

C: MR -> IMP

D: /MR -> GS

E: SL -> IMP

A is correct b/c it's the only answer that matches the chain link. the other answer doesn't follow any of the order in either of our chain links.

the trick I'm using is anything after the indicator will be the negation (necessary condition).

@JuliaSchroeder Try using the " If Not" method. if you see without, unless, until, anything following those indicator will be turn into an "if not" statement.

ex. Without a policy of freedom of speech, governments respond to dangerous ideas irrationally.

IF NOT statement: IF you DO NOT have freedom of speech, governments respond to dangerous ideas irrationally.

LAWGIC: /policy of freedom of speech, -> governments respond to dangerous ideas irrationally

/governments respond to dangerous ideas irrationally -> policy of freedom of speech

that if not statement will become the sufficient condition.

I got 5/5 using the " If Not" method. if you see without, unless, until, anything following those indicator will be turn into an "if not" statement.

ex. Without a policy of freedom of speech, governments respond to dangerous ideas irrationally.

If not statement: if you do not have freedom of speech, governments respond to dangerous ideas irrationally

LAWGIC: /FoS -> governments respond to dangerous ideas irrationally

/governments respond to dangerous ideas irrationally -> FoS

this is how I solved this question, please let me know if I'm wrong because I got the confused sufficient for necessary right but my Lawgic was off.

My lawgic was BO->/HWA HWA->/BO

in earlier lesson it said if you see "unless" turn it into an "if not" statement.

Orignal: Blackouts will occur unless the heat wave abates

'IF NOT' : (suffi.) if the heat wave doesn't abate, then Blackouts will occur (Nece).

Lawgic: /HWB -> BO. /BO -> HWB

(half way through writing this I realized why my Lawgic was off...I confused sufficient for necessary conditions BRUHHH!! )

Question: which claims confused Suffi. for Necess. ? #2 is wrong b/c it flips our "if not" statement. also #1 matches the "If not" statement so it can't be that.

1) if the heat wave doesn't abate, then blackouts will occur

2) if the heat wave abate, then Blackout will not occur

this trick might not work with every "Unless" question but its still a good tool.

I got 5/5 but I spend SOOO much time on each question. I took time to break down the stimulus to fully understand what it is saying. the lowest time I spend on a question was 1:31 and the highest was 17:38!!! ( hopefully i can improve my time)