Are we suppose to know what epoch and diverse cultures were cause I just thought they were two different groups.... not like ohh they are really different I thought they were just geographically different.

@josiahcaterino yeah, I feel like when he talked about B he was using outside knowledge. Which was something I thought we should avoid.

I got B, but A was a hard no for me because of the word 'ONLY.'

The video says A isn't 'precise enough,' but isn't 'ONLY' also just way too percise? The paragraph says it’s reasonable to push for certain animals, but it doesn't say we have to exclude every other species. To me, 'only' made it an automatic fail. Is that a valid way to kill the answer or am I reachin

@e.wimoine Hey! so, no one responded to me. Congrats on the baby and congrats on the second career. Feel free to message me and we can work something out together. but as of now it's just been me lol

aren't we not allowed to use outside information.... I am so confused

I am confused on Question 2: The rule for some is

Some A are B

then the negation would be

No A are B

so for this question I wrote

No Alphabets are Phonetic.

I am not sure what rule we should be assuming for this question with the sentence started with some. I feel like so far with questions 1 and 2 none of the rules I wore ( which were the rules he summarizes at the end of the videos at the end of the page) coexist with the rules he put in the example.

For question 1, I’m confused about why NEC and SUF are being discussed. In this case, we are not negating the conditional itself. Instead, we are negating the term “All”, and that word should determine the form of the negation.

Because we are negating “All,” the negation should be “Some x wings are not hyperdrive”, rather than switching necessary and sufficient conditions.

I represented this as X < s> /hyperdrive

However, if we look back at how conditionals are negated, that would only apply if we were negating the entire conditional statement. In that situation, the correct negation would be X and /hyperdrive.

Since we are not negating the conditional here, why are NEC and SUF relevant at all?

@ktacklesthelsat yes still wondering about this question.

@BreanaNunez I am confused why wouldn't we negate this as like how we usually do. /sick --> / sleep? How can you tell the difference on which way to make the contrapositive.

I am kinda confused. I feel like nothing new was introduced after kicking up. Like we are just working with a bunch of Suf. and Nec in different styles. I am not sure what was added....

Hi! I just started. I would like to join your group. I am near West Campus.

I am also confused about number 3. I remember when he talked about group 4, and he discussed "None of the Americans attended the dictator's party" led to ADP → /A, so why, when, No sales technique can succeed that does not get the potential buyer to emotionally connect with the product being sold. Why wouldn't it be Success ---> / emotionally connect because we had an indicator, "not" so we have to acknowledge it, just like how we had to for " none of the Americans" example, it said None, so we had to make something negated.

I am a little confused with Question 1 because to me it seems like this sentence is from group 3 right? so it would start as /survive ----> atm carb but then we would do the contrapositive so it would be / atm -----> survive so why did he end up doing / atm----> / surv? #help

@marlenevelazquez #help

@MRod #help this is exactly what I was thinking

@christinajooce205 Wait why is D not right? I don't get it.

@shippiinguyen but like where did you interpret the " as long as" because I didn't grasp that.

I keep wondering if anyone else read this the way I did. When I saw Edward’s statement, my brain basically interpreted it as: “Well, governments have the right to do certain things, and people have the freedom to leave. So if someone doesn’t mess with the government forcing taxes, they can just dip.”

I didn’t read it as Edward arguing that a government with specific characteristics is justified in doing an action (like redistributing resources through taxes) because it gives people the freedom to leave.

Because of that interpretation, I chose C—but apparently the question wasn’t about whether the government should let people choose voluntarily or force them. I was reading it like a debate about voluntary vs. forced taxation, not about the principle the passage was actually making.

I’m still trying to figure out where my thinking went off track, and what I should be paying attention to next time so I don’t misinterpret the argument structure like this again.