#feedback. I'm confused about why you can't contrapose here.

Is this not correct?

could play a practical joke → /contempt and /b(significant harm)

#feedback I don't think it was emphasized enough in the previous lessons that the "Two Split Mosts" rule also applies to two "all" or "must" arrows. These two Skill Builders use this rule a lot, and I think it's tripping people up. I know I was confused at how you could get all these some relationships. This is how I see it:

For example:

A ‑m→ B

A ‑m→ C

You can validly conclude that B ←s→ C ("Two Split Mosts")

But you can also do this:

A → B

A → C

You can validly conclude that B ←s→ C (Because "All" or "Must" arrows are even stronger than "Most" arrows, 1 or more Bs must be Cs, and vice versa.)

You can also use the contrapositive with this rule:

B → A contrapositive /A → /B

C → A contrapositive /A → /C

You can validly conclude that /B ←s→ /C

A rule of thumb is that the sufficient conditions must be the same in both relationships to validly infer a some relationship between the necessary conditions. If the necessary conditions are the same, you cannot infer a some relationship. You must take the contrapositive.

#feedback I think it would be helpful to have some more medium-level questions to help get our feet under us before throwing us into the deep end with these extremely hard ones. I want more practice and to gain more understanding before taking on something more difficult. It's getting more and more discouraging getting all these level 5s wrong.