I am kinda confused. I feel like nothing knew 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.