It took me a while to finally grasp this question, and this is what I ended up. Please correct me if I am wrong.

At first, when I read the premises and the conclusion this is how I mapped it out.

CP: use carphone

D: Distracts

PS: pose threat

APL: adopt proposed law

CP → D → PS

APL → /CP

_

APL

I really had hard time connecting all this and have APL has a necessary condition in order to have this conclusion.

BUT, I rewatched JY’s clip over and over again, tried to map it in a different ways several time and this is how I ended up understanding this particular problem.

The premise CP → D → PS is not really (?) a conditional statement. ( This is what I think... because well.. it doesn’t even have conditional indicators... and doesn’t really have sufficient and necessary conditions..?)

I mean it just gives relevance to the real conditional premise which is PL → /CP. (oh I divided APL to just PL because the premise says ‘if it were illegal to do so’... which is really just talking about the bill, not actually adopting it yet)

Which means PL → /CP (/D,/PS)

So, D and PS are like characteristics of CP. So If I don’t use CP, /D and /PS come with it.

Then the mapping would go like this.

PL (proposed law)→ /CP ( /D, /PS)

_

Adopt PL

Therefore,

SA: /CP ( /D, /PS) → APL

Which is ac D, ANY proposed law that would reduce PS should be adopted.

This is all I can come up with, I ran out of all the possible explanations for this... so.. if I am wrong... someone #help me!!!!

I saw somewhere (I think Power score) that ‘almost all’ is an indicator of the word ‘most’.

Isn’t ‘nearly all’ and ‘almost all’ the same thing?

If not, how are they different? And if same, then... how come that can be an indicator of ‘most’ if the implied numbers(?) are different?

#help (Added by Admin)

Uhm... Most is negation of few???

I though Most negates to most are not...

And few is Some indicator so if you negate it it’s none.. isn’t it??

I am so confused right now.

Also, I thought you can’t do contrapositive on most statement...

So confused..

#help (Added by Admin)

I tried to come up a way to understand this question in an easy way, and this is what I came up with. (Anyone, please feel free to correct me..!)

Ball lightening caused by super plasma has phenomenon A & B

Ball lightening professor observed did not have phenomenon A & B

So,SP is NEVER a factor in causing ball lightening.

Okay.. so if I were to argue, what if the ball lightening professor observed was a different ball lightening that was caused by a different factor? Then, we can’t say SP is NEVER a factor in causing a ball lightening. Maybe SP causes ball lightening A with certain phenomenon, and professor’s ball lightening is a type B with different phenomenon.(which has been caused by a different factor)

Now, that’s where E comes and block this.

All types of ball lightening is caused by ONE factor.

Professor argues his BL was not caused by SP, and if every type of BL has been caused by a one single factor, then yes, SP can NEVER be the factor of causing BL.

I don’t know if I have explained this well.. tried my best to make it succinct and comprehensible...

I wish JY would explain the ACs more in detail..

Cuz I chose E then I changed my ac to D. I still wanted to know why E was wrong and he just says well.. it doesn’t match up!

Okay... how does it not match up...?

Yeah.. I need more explanation than that..

I wanted to get some answers on the usage of the word ‘counterexample’ in this case and yet reading the comments made me even more confused.. :/

What is right? Is the word counterexample wrong in this particular problem or it is correct to use it?

#help (Added by Admin)

What helped me save some time as well was to do the easy questions in the beginning and just getting them out of the way. Also, I wouldn't waste too much energy on them because lingering on the questions in the beginning really wastes your time. So just pick an answer, have faith, and move on. If you are not sure which is the correct answer, then just skip it. That way, when later you are done with all the questions, you will most likely to have some time left to go back to them and check the answers or redo the question!

I get why E can be a wrong ac, but A is still very confusing to me.

Yeah, if you say it is 5 million vs 1000 people, of course vaccine is going to be more profitable. But what if vaccine was administered once to 10 million people vs medicine administered to 5 million for 6 times?

Shouldn’t we consider this possibility too? If we are considering the first case only, aren’t we making an assumption that we are not suppose to?

I need help, ugh! :(

#help (Added by Admin)

Can anybody explain why A is a wrong ac?

After reading A, what I thought was because the workers received safety training on their own time with their own expense, this is what truly contributed to lower injury rates. (not because the plant was safe.)

However, I am thinking this maybe is just an assumption that I am making on my own? And plus, Just because they had received training, it doesn’t explain that the plant isn’t safe ider....

Idk... I need #help :(