That's fantastic!! Congrats!!

I'm interested in joining!

@ said:

I'm interested in joining your study group

I hope I'm understanding your question right. The formula for unless is as follows: take what comes after unless and put it in the necessary condition. Negate what comes before unless and put it in the sufficient condition. For me personally, the contrapositive makes more sense than what the formula gives me at first.

If by two conditional indicators you mean a biconditional, then "if and only if" tells us (---) is what we should diagram.

First sentence: chosen for G -> exhibit bravery, not exhibit bravery -> not chosen for G. The rule is that no student is chosen for G. There is one exception to the rule, being if that student exhibits bravery. They only way to be chosen for G is to exhibit bravery, so if that student has been chosen for G they have exhibited bravery.

Second sentence: exhibits bravery -> chosen for G, not chosen for G -> not exhibit bravery. Pretty simple, the only lawgical rule is that if they exhibit bravery, they will be chosen for G. No exceptions.

Admin correct me if I'm wrong but this is a case of confusing necessary for sufficient.

Far from a master at this, only commenting to reinforce the material for myself. Let me know if you need a study buddy.

I thought of it as a reversal being too vague to weaken the argument. Are these adrenaline secreting experiences ones that are remembered more intensely or less intensely? We really don't know. (C) on the other hand is a bulletproof answer because if frightening experiences are remembered more clearly than non-frightening experiences, and highly pleasurable experiences (obviously non-frightening) also increase adrenaline (thus being remembered clearly), we cannot say that frightening experiences are remembered more clearly than non-frightening experiences. If anyone thinks I could've thought about it better let me know.