Step 4: Synthesize the information and go hunting.

Can this post teach us more about step 4 in terms of how we can best go about "synthesizing"

Under review section what this law fix statement mean:

not imply /A ←s→ /B.

WEhat does step 4 fall back mean?

Note that the arrow points in both directions. That's what I meant by calling bi-conditionals "two-way conditionals." Each condition is both sufficient and necessary for the other condition.

Under the following part of this lesson,

"How to negate a disjunction"

it reads

First, we "flip and negate:"

M → /(/N or /O)

I am confused though --only the necessary is negated and nothing is flipped. Based on the logic translation above, what is the original statement we are trying to find the contrapositive of?

Is it the one at the top that reads, If M is adopted, then No and O are adopted?

I am also confused about the following wording:

"That's a lot of /'s but don't worry, remember that negations cancel out. To distribute the / into the parenthesis, "

What does it mean exactly?

so in your example, is being a wizard sufficient /enough to be a spell caster?

Meanwhile, is it necessary to be a spell caster to be a wizard?

One way to do it is to alphabetize like group any, all (two words that start with A), then when where (two words starting with w), and then individaully remember the other 3 words like if, every indiivually.

Can we look at the sufficiency and necessity relationship from the lens:

Zombi invasion of new york is sufficient for NYC real estate market to crash.

Is the necessary condition, therefore, that it is necessary for there to be a real estate market crash for there to be a zombie attack in NYC

what is the necessary condition and the sufficient condition?

I know the necessary condition is they need to show that the characteristic of the trait is immutable. However, I am pretty lost on what is the sufficient condition.

under. " lets review section", when it says there may not be a clear winner, is that saying that it could either be A being equal to b, but B also possibly being more but not a scenario where one is the clear winner.

In actuality, hat does this entire mini paragraph mean (the second part)?

What is meant by complication and how are these complications analyzed in isolation.

Can we please have formal definitions or any definitions for the topics and ideas that are bolded? It makes understanding better and less complicated

Hello everyone in a situation where there are nouns multiple of them in the subject how do we distinguish what is the subject and what is a modifier?

What does it mean to say “ The strength of argument is determined by how likely it is that the conclusion follows from the premise ”. This is the first sentence in the let’s review section at the bottom of the page.

Is that referring to how the strenfth level of support in argument is determined by the strength of how likely it is for premise—if true— To support the conclusion

#help (Added by Admin)

4.1: I’m not sure why “So we should try it.” should be considered as a conclusion. I thought that was the author’s way of ending the sentence. I need an explanation on why the premises is a premise.

I would say look at this in this manner:

We should try it (claim that the person wants to convince other toy store people on). Since he/she/they them is rationalizing we should try it by stating, "There is a chance that more advertising for our latest unpopular toy could improve sales," this highlights the relationship. Remember the whole imagine if we live in a world where the claim, "There is a chance that more advertising for our latest unpopular toy could improve sales" is true. Would that support the proposed course of action that "we should try it."

Yes, it does.

I was a bit like what the heck when I read it, but "so we should try it" is the claim that the speaker of the sentence wanted to persuade people on. Persuasion is the aim of the argument and conclusion is the claim that seeks to persuade or convince people about something.

I hope this helps bro