It is necessary.

If you are eligible, then you have an exemplary record.

Thinking about it this way doesn't hurt as long as you understand the contrapositive: if you do not have an exemplary record, then you are not eligible.

If you are not eligible, you do not have an exemplary record.

These all mean the same thing.

The first part of the first sentence can be translated into more straightforward english.

"We have a pool of fully qualified candidates that don't work at Arvue."

The second part can be translated as:

"Out of that pool we should hire the most productive one"

They're trying to figure out who to hire out of the qualified people that applied for a job.

Hiccups are certainly relevant. Answer choice B is just saying that out of one hundred accounts of ebola, some didn't record hiccups. So let's say 100 out of 100 all recorded fever, throwing up, and sweating. Also, 23 out of the 100 recorded hiccups. Now, we have a bunch of people with similar symptoms, but some accounts are more detailed than others. This doesn't hurt the embola case. This hurts the case that Athenian record-keeping wasn't perfect. We still have plenty of reason to believe that it was Ebola. There were one hundred people, and a good chunk of them didn't record or didn't experience hiccups. The premise didn't give us a percentage of people who needed to have hiccups to declare it the epidemic as ebola. According to the premise, no disease is associated with hiccups other than ebola. So, the fact that some recorded hiccups is great for the ebola case.

And A weakens because we're going based on records. Records are all we got, so our domain is records.

No, I have severe ADHD and dyslexia. This stuff is working for me. Don't let your learning difference get you down. You got this; apply yourself and keep yourself engaged in the content. If you don't force yourself to actively engage with the lessons, you won't get anything out of them. That's not just for people with learning differences; that's for everyone. Pause the videos, do the lawgic before he does it for you, and try hard. This is simply difficult. Good luck!

In the lesson, this is explained (below). So in short, yes you could assume "some dogs are friendly," and that "most dogs are friendly." All is sufficient to most. So if we're changing the original statement to a some claim in the other direction, it must be true that most are friendly. To reiterate, because all is sufficient to most. I could be wrong, but that's what I got. Hope that helps!

"That means that some members of A are not members of B. It doesn't mean that all members of A are not members of B."

Most mean at least above 50%, but it can also mean all.

Since most can mean all, all is sufficient for most. Whereas most is not sufficient for all because most means at least 50.1%, but not necessarily all. If you have all then you know it's most. If you have most maybe you have 50.1%.

Reduce your confusion about conditional relationships by thinking to yourself, "What is sufficient for another thing to be true?" In other words, "if something is true what would the truth of that statement result in?" I don't know this helps me, maybe its not helpful. Good luck!

That method isn't great for the pet adoption question (Q7). I mean it works, but it doesn't help. Read the explanation.

50+ and 10yrs --> MF

This lets you know that you need both of those things to get MF. From what I gather, and I could be wrong, you can mistake the rule-exception translation to mean and/or. Whereas in this case its clear its a "and."

Residents are part of the rule. Residents are prohibited. The rule doesn't apply to people outside the apartment building.

I mean, your answer feels correct, but I imagine things will be less clear during the test. I think the rule exception method is the quickest to get at, but at the end of the day, it's whatever works for you. He's just giving us tools to use.

Yeah, I think my problem has been missing the part about making the contrapositives when chaining.

Thanks for the feedback!

#Help So on question 9 I found something that works for me. Is there anything wrong with this formation? Can anyone think of a reason as to why this might be detrimental? My lawgic looked like this:

W --> M

LSD --> /M

H --> LSD

Mr. White makes LSD

------------------------

/W

/M

He is not growing weed or cooking meth. He is making LSD and could be making Heroin.

Great comment. Extremely helpful!

Hey, y'all can anyone help with question two?

So you can get a grip on my original thoughts, here is my first answer... Forgive me, it goes as follows:

/R --> B --> /A --> /R --> /A --> S --> /R --> J

I get that this is just a mess and that things aren't directly related, but that's just to show you where I started.

My refined question is this: I feel as though throwing away /J or J claim reduces the amount of information in the lawgic formation. Is there something wrong with the following?

/J --> /B --> R --> A -->/S

The contrapositive would be:

S --> /A --> /R --> B --> J

I get that "B --> J" and "/J --> /B" don't have a direct relationship, but it has an indirect, contingent relationship.

If /J happens, then it must be true that /B happens, and then it also must be true that R happens.

I guess it's similar to my first answer in that they aren't direct relationships. I think if I moved on I would be fine, but what is the technical answer here?