I’m still a little confused hopefully someone can help me out with the first example. If the Chancellor succeeds that means that Amidala failed or the Jedi’s failed. So we’re saying that it’s necessary for Amidala or the Jedi to fail or both. I think my confusion is not being able to split the arrow, is it that CS-> AF or CS-> JF reads Chancellor succeeds so Amidala failed or Chancellor succeeds so Jedi’s failed.

So are we operating from a place of assumption? Basically assuming that since the Chancellors plan succeeded that either Amidala failed or JF failed.

So either one of two options failed or both and we know that that happened because the chancellor plan succeeded.

If I’m speaking in circles I apologize I am just trying to understand it in as simple terms as possible.

Number 5 made no sense to me. Wouldn’t it be comparing the cold temperatures, where did accustomed and now come from? Also how do we know if it’s now it could’ve been maintained years ago

My brain started to turn off after question 3

When I read the first statement, I had to reread it for one but after reading it, it just seemed like a bunch of facts thrown together and there was no support. After reading the first paragraph, I was expecting there to be some conclusion that tied them together. I couldn’t identify a conclusion and even with asking the why question it still didn’t make sense.

Disney: That argument is the strongest because the argument only lists two ways in which a guest pass can be obtained. So it is either one way or the other. It is stated that Walt did not prostrate himself in front of Goofy so he must have obtained the pass the other way that we were told.

Tiger: That argument is straight to the point and gives an example of a mammal that is dangerous, it states that not every mammal is suitable, it never says not all so this can be taken as true.

Trash Can: This one is the weakest because there may be other variables that were at play that caused the trash can to be knocked over. 1) Mr. Fat Cat could have been cleaning to self sooth or because he just finished using the bathroom. 2) The trash can could have been knocked over before Mr. Fat Cat entered the kitchen. 3) He could’ve stepped in something on the counter and was licking his paws. 4) He could have knocked it over accidentally. 5) How can we be sure he wanted to access the salmon when the argument also states that there were other contents spilled,

This drill confused me to no end. The last drill confused me it being one long sentence threw me off

This whole section just confused me………. Nothing is making sense

Question #5 tripped me up a bit but from my interpretation now. Since it is fewer than half we know that for “most” it can’t go beyond the half+ upper bound. Now since some has a lower bound starting at one, we can infer that because it is saying that it is fewer than half that zero is now included.

I hope I’m understanding this correctly.

So basically "some" is inclusionary since the lower bound begins at one and there is no upper range. So with this its like there is no limit? or is the limit the number that was placed? for example the 20 students?

Okay I get how some but not all, and only indicate that "all" is being excluded. I'm still a little stuck on how the previous lesson shows that some can include all.

Is the quantifier "some" being used in the same way as "sum" where its just adding up since it is ambiguous?

Also can we get an example of this with context?

Help! I redid this skill builder again and I felt like I got #1 but then again something seems to not be clicking with the explanation. I have

Rule: /relocated-pandas-> prosper

/prosper-> relocated-pandas

Exception: drive out poachers

I see with the explanation that rule goes away so in English translation it would be

If the poachers are driven out then the pandas that were not relocated prosper?

If the poachers are not driven out then the pandas that were relocated do not prosper?

So if I’m understanding this correctly because Kumar was 17 minutes late we cannot assume that this was sufficient enough because the necessary condition only mentioned 5+ minutes after?

I’m confused…

The mistake I made with question 2 is I didn’t solve the sentences separately I conjoined them and ended up really solving the second sentence, I got it correct but that small mistake is so annoying. Also with question 5, I did org-provide-> purpose-promotion instead of putting should provide.

If one is pulling out their hair, then one is studying for the LSAT.

PTH —> LSAT

If one is not studying for the LSAT, then one is not pulling out their hair

/LSAT —> /PTH

I am interested, I am in Brooklyn and aiming to get a 170+

Is diagramming necessary on the test? I feel like we’v spent a lot of time doing diagrams and it can be time consuming. When things start looking like equations it becomes more confusing. It’s understandable when written out but things looking like fractions really confuse me.

I’ve been confused since the first question……WTH

Okay I am a little confused with the second example. I know that or is group 3 and that is a disjunction so we flip it and we turn it into a sufficient condition, so why are we negating FT? Is it because or introduced the disjunction so PP gets flipped?

I feel like I might have answered my own question but I still would like some clarification to know if I’m going in the right direction.

Hopefully i got this correct

Dog is the set and the members are Fido, Lassie and Marmadue. Mammal is a superset that dog is in. Simba is a member of mammal set but not a member of the dog set. Physical Thing is a superset of mammal. Ball is member of physical things but not a member of mammal.

Black is a set and the members are Steve, Harvey and Alyssa. Student is a superset of Black, Justin is a member of student set but not a member of Black set. American is a superset of student and Linell is a member of American but not a member of student subset.