Yes, because we only know that he arrived 17 minutes after the last bell ring. Nothing in the sentence explicitly said he was late, and that is what we need to train ourselves to see, to wording of a statement/question not if it is true claim or not. Like Kumar could have had a doctor's note, or maybe he didn't even arrive to class, we know he arrived somewhere but it didn't say it was to class. Does that makes better sense?

Let me see if I can help, this is how I understand it. First visually at 7:79 the video shows the superset arrive 5+ mins after and subset late along with Elias's dot in the late subset and Melissa's dot outside of both circles/sets. This is because it EXPLICITLY said that Elias was properly cited as late, therefore we can conclude because he was properly cited as late that he also arrive 5+ mins after the last bell. Both of these requirements are NECESSARY for him to be properly cited as late. So we put his dot in the late subset as he fulfilled both requirements to be in that circle. Melissa arrived less than five minutes after. Therefore she neither arrived 5+ mins after or was cited as late, so her dot is outside of both sets. No where in the statement "Kumar arriving 17 minutes after the last ring of the homeroom bell" does it say he was "properly cited as late" like Elias does, therefore Kumar does not fulfill the 2 requirements necessary to be allowed in the late subset, he only satisfies one so his dot would go into the arrive 5+ mins after superset. Remember you CAN be a cat to be allowed in the mammal superset, but you HAVE to be a mammal to be allowed in the cat subset. So you can arrive more that 5 minutes after the last bell to be included in the arrive 5+ mins after superset, but you have to be cited as late to be allowed in the late subset.

So you CAN be a cat to be allowed in the mammal superset, but you HAVE to be a mammal to be allowed in the cat subset.