This might be pedantic, but I'd like to ask a question of referential with an example from the text above:

"There are many things we value in our language but two in particular are simplicity of expression and economy of expression."

Is "two" a referential that refers to "things," or am I misunderstanding?

Is Question 2 is an example of a sentence containing both a premise and a conclusion? We discover that Max had, in fact, asked the police to investigate, right before being introduced to the conclusion, "Max is not guilty."

Just want to ask this for the purposes of not confusing opposite with negation:

"Amidala cannot deliver her speech unless the attempt to assassinate her fails."

In the example, the video made the choice to negate, "Amidala cannot deliver her speech." The lawgic we see is:

SAS -> AAF

However, I interpreted "the attempt to assassinate her fails," as already containing a negation (That is, the assassination failing is the negation of the assassination succeeding.) My lawgic looked like this:

SAS -> /A (where A is assassination.)

Does this work? Or have I confused the negation of failure with the opposite of failure?

This will probably be explained in a future lesson I imagine, but I'd like clarification on what happens when the necessary condition is true instead of the sufficient.

I'll use the milk/store example since I think that's the one most of us are confused about. I'll also write it out to specify the premises and conclusion:

Premise 1: If I go to the store, I will buy milk.

Premise 2: I went to the store.

Conclusion: I bought milk.

And here the "Lawgic" version of Premise 1:

Store -> Milk

This might not make sense in our world, but in the world of this argument then if anyone ever goes to the store, they have to buy milk. I think this makes sense.

Now what if I change the argument to something like this:

Premise 1: If I go to the store, I will buy milk.

Premise 2: I bought milk.

Conclusion: I went to the store.

I want to say that this does not make sense/is not valid, because Premise 1 is unchanged that means that the Lawgic is still "Store -> Milk," and not "Milk -> Store." In English, this would mean that I could have gotten milk from anywhere, not just the store.

Could #1 also be interpreted as surplus of corn seeds this year vs surplus of corn seeds last year?

The quality we'd be comparing is which would be smaller, and the winner basically stays the same.