#feedback The player on these videos do not work all of the time, not allowing me to change viewing speed or change subtitles settings. In this video, subtitles covered the passage and I could not read all of it without reloading the page.

real.

I usually watch it through at a much increased speed in order to double check the reasoning as well as also to ensure that I correctly parsed any grammar for the stimulus and answer choices

I think the problem with the logic that you're using here is you're using the word "most" as an idea of "the most". While in your example it is true that the color that women like "the most" is pink, it is not true that "most" women like pink. Also 2nd example, you're using 2 different "A" variables.

Using Lawgic, the argument you made is

Men -m-> Black

Women -m- Black

Therefore, Men Women

This is not a valid argument since the most is not an omnidirectional statement. It is not valid to say in that most people who like the color black are men or women given the information that we have

Makes sense!

So in the first example:

If. this means there are two circles with the circle "beings that can use the force" completely encompassing the circle of "jedi"

However, if we negate this conditional claim, we are saying that: it is not the case that if one is a jedi then one is able to use the force.

Since we are negating the conditional relationship, it could be argued that there is no relationship between the circles and therefore we have no clue about the circles.

It is possible that every jedi happens to be able to use the force despite the fact that it is not a requirement. It could be possible that no jedis know how to use the force. It could be possible that some jedis know how to use the force. Since we are negating the relationship, the circles could be in any configuration

yes it is the same thing

I could be misunderstanding what you are trying to say here but I believe that in order for something to have a super/subset relationship, the superset must encompass the entirety of the subset. So the example of Americans being a superset of students would not be accurate as not all students are American.

I think you're right here. The statement that "scientists theorize that" could prevent this from being an argument as the premises do not prove that the scientists theorize this idea. It would be more descriptive than argumentative. At least to me

Wouldn't the first question be an argument?

Premise -> Cross sections of pigs' teeth found in an excavated Stone Age trash pit revealed bands of remarkably constant width except that the band deposited last, which was invariably translucent, was only about half the normal width.

Conclusion -> The teeth of some mammals show “growth rings” that result from the constant depositing of layers of cementum as opaque bands in summer and translucent bands in winter.

The argument requires some assumptions being that "The bands of constant width found on the pigs result from constant depositing of layers" However, since pigs are mammals, the truth of the premise does make the conclusion more likely