Spurs up! Go cocks!!

Also that Kate and Jack weren't in Avatar, but Atlantis

Drake?!

I was wondering this too... I found the answer within 20 seconds but spent another 30 reviewing

5/5 on harder and right on time!!

I had that same problem too and it wasted a bunch of time! I just went back to the Group 3 indicators module and it cleared everything up for me really well

It's because of the amount of information we were given in the problem. The problem outlined one concrete way for an administration to be successful: economic success AND protecting individual liberties. With this relationship given of

ES and PIL → Overall Success

we are then given a premise of an administration, one that does not protect the environment but does protect individual liberties. Because we aren't given any other information regarding economic success, we must assume C, where economic success by that political administration warrants overall success.

The trickiness might have come from the "conditional" of environmental protections, where what would have been a concrete "will" relationship was undermined by the word "may". Because of this, we cannot assume any relationship based on environmental protections, as they do not guarantee anything. Let me know if this makes sense.

THE GOAT

No, the negation of most is simply not most. There's a lesson where they go into it, but most implies in a hefty margin that something is greater than 50% and possibly by a larger share than that.

We can picture it on a rough scale of "50% < x <= 100%", where most is greater than half and can technically be all.

Few, on the other hand, implies that it is more than one (or possibly two, it's very vague) and less than one half. This is because few implies a really weird definition of "some but not many", a definition which highlights a more constricted view. With this, we can pinpoint a scale of "1 or 2 < x < many", with a rough indicator on your interpretation of many. However, this indication typically means it is less than half, so you could write the scale as "1 or 2 < x < 50%".

When looking at this, although a mathematical view could imply the negation of most as few, after all, "1 - 'most'" would leave you with a minority, there is a vague margin on what that would actually mean. As well, few is not inclusive to 1/2, meaning defining the negation of many as "few" would confuse an opposite for a negation.

Think back to the really early example of "the room is hot". The opposite of that statement would be "the room is cold", but would that be the negation? There's a range of temperatures that are not hot, like lukewarm, chilly, or freezing that aren't hot, and definitely aren't a strict cold. Because of this, the negation of "the room is hot" is simply "the room is not hot".

Think of the examples of most in a similar manner, where the negation of us saying "most penguins wear tuxedos" could not be "few penguins wear tuxedos". The language simply isn't inclusive to other possibilities, where no penguins wear tuxedos or exactly half of the penguins wear tuxedos. The only reasonable resolution is that it isn't the case that most penguins wear tuxedos.

TDLR: Few isn't inclusive to other possibilities in the range that the negation of most requires, but could be interpreted as an opposite, just not a negation.

I believe you could, as that falls under the domain rule they discussed, moving the exception to the domain.

One who is a Soprano is Italian. Tony is a Soprano. Therefore, Tony is Italian.

S → I

t(S)

_

t(I)

I'm a little confused, let me know if either of these are wrong...

Lanorris Sellers is a Gamecock, which means it is sufficient that he plays in the SEC. It is not necessary, however, that one who plays in the SEC is a Gamecock, they could be a Bulldog instead. It is, however, necessary that Gamecocks are in the SEC.

Kanye is a rapper, and so it is sufficient that he is a musical artist. Because of this relationship, it is necessary that rappers are artists, but not necessary that all musical artists are rappers.

I think the idea comes with transitive or intransitive verbs. The way I was introduced to the topic was through Arabic, where transitive verbs take on an object directly (typically with modifiers of their own) without a preposition. On the other hand, verbs are intransitive when they have one separating the object.

For Q4, it says "The formation of hurricanes that threaten the United States mainland is triggered by high atmospheric winds off the western coast of Africa."

The reason the atmospheric winds clause isn't a direct object is because of the word "by", setting up a prepositional phrase. If the kernel "the formation is triggered" took on a direct object, then we would need to rephrase it to "the formation triggered winds", where the winds are receiving the action of being triggered.

TLDR: prepositions of all types cause prepositional phrases like by, who, that, etc.

Note: the sentence with "declared" is tricky, because declaring something in the function of English implies or uses a prepositional phrase. The reason the declaration 'Billboards are the basis of our business.' is a direct object is because it serves as a recipient of the actions, just like the winds above.

"I'm hugging you because I miss you."

Isn't this an argument similar to that of Poseidon? Why is it different? There is an act, a conclusion, where the premise of my hugging is that I miss the person. The same notion could be made for Poseidon, who feels a certain way (the conclusion) having a direct cause by the destruction (the premise).

Both lack the persuasive part of an argument other than the general "one does X because Y", answering the simple question of "why". I'm just a little confused on why the context changes in these examples.

The way I have thought of it is through a more complicated analogy. The example uses tigers because it is a common assumption, something most people would understand. But, if we take it as something more niche, like football terminology, we can see why the context of assumptions matter so much.

A good three-point stance allows a lineman to block more efficiently. Therefore, lineman should practice their three-point stance.

If you know football well, you will have the prior context that a three-point stance is a typical stance for lineman, that it has a direct correlation to initial blocking technique, and that it requires practice to achieve like any other skill. Making such an argument requires less context to someone who knows the sport, as all of those "assumptions" are "known-facts".

On the flipside, someone lacking football knowledge would draw the assumption that lineman block, doing so efficiently is a good thing, and that a three-point stance is something they could do. If we clarified this, however, saying that "Blocking efficiently is not necessary for football", then the argument falls apart as the notion of "should" leaves more room for doubt.

I think they use tigers as a good assumption because it is a well-known assumption, but that is where the usage and interpretation ends. It is more about understanding the context - that assumptions aren't necessarily known-facts - even if it is very easy.

All quarterbacks who win a Heisman go to the NFL. Kyle McCord won the national championship but not a Heisman, so he has a lesser chance of going to the NFL than Joe Burrow did, who won both awards.

I could really go for a couple hamburgers right now