/cook - /sing

Sing - cook

I see that now. Thanks.

The order doesn't matter when it comes to trying to analyze the structure of the argument to determine conformity. :) ignore the order.

D is wrong because the analogy that needs to be attacked to most weaken has to do with competition, which is the most relevant aspect to the relationship of the argument.

Truly trying to pick out the most clean answer from a dumpster moment

CLAIM BRUH

the some statement doesn't have a contrapositive even in that situation.

What he did is negate the some statement and then apply the contrapositive to the negation :)

My understanding is that the harder the sentences and paragraphs get, the more you'll need to translate. It's just to get into the habit of doing it so when it gets harder, you'll be able to answer hard questions correctly and (almost) just as fast without having to do extra mental heavy lifting.

Yes, but the video explicitly asks you to create two different sets that intersect (overlap) one another. The way you described it you created a subset -> superset relationship :)

love the practice questions but I feel like at least one should be a whole passage with the lesson being applied to it. I know the drills are separate but at least one question being added to these with an explanation could help me transition from single sentences to being able to apply the lesson to entire passages. #feedback

For Q3 there's a mistake. The answer in text says "The birds cannot sing unless pastries cook themselves" as an inference, but in the video, the inference is "if birds can sing, then pastries cook themselves." #feedback

How do you know that? That's not a reasonable inference. It could be that tom is 5'3 inches and Athena is 5'2. Are either of them 'tall'? no. Or Tom is 6'2 and Athena is 6'1. Is she short? No. All you can infer is that Tom is tall relative to Athena. Hope this helps!

If you take the sentence "scientists discovered that the sky is blue", a discovery is sure proof that something is true; whereas if you take the sentence "scientists theorize that the sky is blue", a theory is just that - something unproven, therefore less clear. Depending on the context of the rest of the paragraph, the difference that one word would make would be huge in terms of support. I hope this helps!

My understanding is since "not both" is excluded, it's ambiguous. I see it as "either/or but not both" as the only definitive, conclusive, 100% certain exclusive 'or' (one OR the other, not both).

It's counter intuitive. If my mom told me "you could have either the ice-cream or the cake", as a child who knows logic, i could be in my rights to have both. My mom never said that there's a barrier to me having both.

Here, context is key. I have to capacity and the ability to have both. By contrast, If we said that I could sit at one end of the table vs the other, it's assumed that I can't split myself in half and have one sit at one end and the other at the other end.

The question is logical possibility, without letting any assumptions get in the way. Linguistically either can be exclusive, but also inclusive, depending on context.

I hope this helps.

BO->HWA misses what the clause is saying. If Blackouts occur, the heatwave will abate. Instead, if blackouts occur, the heatwave didn't abate is correct because of "unless", hence BO -> /HWA. One condition must be a negation.