For Question 5, can we make the conclusion be that some things that fantasize about attacking their owners must also live in a loving home vs that some cats that fantasize about attacking their owners must also live in a loving home? Wondering since the answer explanation uses both.

So if the relationship of "all A are B" can, as we know from Group 1 conditional indicators, be expressed as a conditional relationship A -> B, does that mean when negating A -> B, we can use the method we used to negate "all A are B," so like in #5 when we answer that "some A are not B"? So there are really two options for expressing the negation of the conditional A -> B?

Should the first answer for #3 be "more than three inches of snow is not sufficient~," not just "three inches of snow"?

Why not say few means "some but not most" if we are going to translate it into "some are" and "most are not" anyway? Why say it means "some but not many"?

Can we make the case that the lower bound for many, though unclear, must be at least greater than one (as opposed to some's "at least one"), since a single quantity of something cannot be "many"?

What would a "Or... but not both" biconditional look like? Would we have to negate one of the given conditions for the Yoda example?

So under the statement "All residents of The Beresford are prohibited from keeping pets in their apartments unless the animal serves a legitimate medical purpose," let's say your animal serves a legitimate medical purpose. Does the specific rule of prohibition here just not apply to you but we cannot explicitly conclude that you are allowed to keep it as a pet? As in you are not prohibited by this rule, but you are also not explicitly allowed, so this is what the lesson means when it says the rule "doesn't force a result either way" when you are inside the exception?

In Question 1, is it the same thing to say that Mr. White "cooks meth" vs he "can cook meth"? In the module right before this we differentiated between being expected to do something vs being able to do something. Should we not apply the same differentiation here?

I'm confused about the time tenses in these translations back into English. Shouldn't the /BO -> /HWA translation be "If blackouts don't occur, then the heat waves have abated" rather than "then the heat wave abates"? Not sure if this is too extraneous, but I am a bit confused.