what I don't understand is how to properly translate sentence 3 of question 2. I feel I could have easily wrote /s -> A instead of s -> /A. I don't know what conditional indicator group this sentence belongs to or how to translate it properly.

So even if Kumar arrived only six minutes after the bell, it would still be invalid to assume he would be marked late because he satisfies the necessary condition but not necessarily the sufficient condition?

@m_k_a_a_a I agree. I needed an outside explanation before further understanding what the video meant. I believe the video is trying to explain that comparatives can appear to be an absolute claim when it is not. An absolute claim describes something independently without comparison (ex: Tom is tall.) which is the exact opposite purpose of a comparative (ex: Tom is taller than Athena). A comparative may appear as absolute without context.

It is important to identify comparatives vs. absolute claims when answering flaw question-types. The arguer may state an absolute claim that follows with a relative conclusion or vice versa. The logic here does not follow as an absolute claim does not imply a relative conclusion.

The point is, with flaw questions,it is up to the student to be able to identify the flaw.

@dh2303 I was confused by the first example. The term "which" in relation to Azedcorp sounded like a modifier of Azedcorp because it added on detail. However, it also could be a referential referring back to Azedcorp. Is it possible for a term, for example in this case, to be both a modifier and a referential?