I'd like to join as well!

#feedback we haven't talked much about when it is and is not okay to infer something from the information presented in a stimulus. In the group 3 conditional arguments skill builder it talks a bit about what we can't infer and now in question 5 it's telling us that we should infer that "society's elite" includes "politicians". Reasonability seems subjective in regards to what is reasonable enough to infer. I would have personally assumed that "society's elite" and "politicians" were two distinct groups since the test writers did not make it clear.

Any help or guidance on this issue would be very much appreciated.

#Help Does negating a conditional then make the conditional pointless. Can I just ignore the relationship then?

what use is a negated conditional to a stimulus? I'm struggling to understand how negating a conditional changes or interacts with a stimulus.

I'm struggling with thinking that the tiger argument is an argument because it's missing a 2nd premise to tie the two statements together. It's missing a sentence defining what makes an animal suitable to be a pet. The fact that a tiger is "very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people" does nothing to prove that it isn't a suitable pet. Without knowing what a "suitable pet" is, the premise does not support the conclusions.

Is there something I'm missing?