Is there a lesson in the core curriculum that goes over sub-conclusions and major premises in detail?

I chose answer choice C based off of the language used in the stimulus, which stated that Ptolemy's theory "struck Copernicus as unlikely." I felt that this indicates the use of intuition.

I have the same thought. Fear of job loss would contribute to the aforementioned social inertia in opposition to the new technology. #feedback

Yes, but "few" does not have its own expression in lawgic.

For example, think about the sentence "Few children are able to speak spanish."

"Few" implies that there is at least one child, and no more than half of children can speak spanish, or else most children would be able to speak spanish. Thus, this sentence translates into lawgic like this:

C ←s→ SS (some children speak spanish)

C ‑m→ /SS (most children can not speak spanish)

I believe so. That would insinuate that there could be other analogies that are equally appropriate to reporting on political campaigns, which is the same as what the video says about chess and drag racing at 13:00.

The use of "usually" threw me off a little bit and got me thinking, could "often" be interpreted the same way as "some" in certain cases? For example "Cars are often driven through mud."

Could this be expressed C DTM ?

Which would read both as "Some cars drive through mud", and as "some things that drive through mud are cars".

Just wondering.

I think that it is correct as stated since the quantifier "overwhelming majority" raises the floor in comparison to the quantifier "most". In the same way that it must be true that "most" requires more than half, "overwhelming majority" requires at least 60-70%, and thus those must be true, whereas 71-100% could be true, if I'm understanding correctly.