Here is a summary of rules of logical reasonings I made based on this set of lessons on formal logic

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mzHeZeqlfMRuofA8p6mD8DN9mwwL_nJZQroekfDn-Yw/edit?usp=sharing

here is a cheat sheet I made to help me study (till I have it memorized). I hunt it above my desk:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1H0VooypfwEdfLurm0T8W1l1E60EdWZCS/view?usp=sharing

Feel free to print, use, and share

omg you are the actual best- thanks. This is really clear and helpful!

WHEWWWW I see why B, C, D, and E are wrong but my gosh, I cant imagine being able to figure out why A is right -- bc it feels like ther are other (more important) ncessary assumptions than A that are skipped, and like JY pointed out - that can easily seem similar to other ansers.

I think it would be true to say that its not that A is the ONLY necessary assumption for this argument to hold, but that it is ONE of the necessary assumptions the argument needs to hold. The NA that it isnt possible to find these medicines anywhere other than this rain forst still is required, its just that its not an option

Is this accurate?

Either way Im gonna follow JYs advise and starred this question and will come back and try to work it when Im done this unit

wow this is SUCH a hard Q. I dont know how Id do this on my own - every answer (besides A) is hard to cross of

I made flash cards. Its only one side (Ie when you print the first time you use you have to fill out the back side) but tehen you can use to drill yourself. Here is a PDF link if you wnat to print and access

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RsqC415j5m65dWgFO9IRk9UBrT7Vc5-k/view?usp=sharing

#feedback Im confused how to differentiate if Im looking at a SArule questions or an SAappliation question

How do I know based on the QS and stimulus which I should be looking out for?

#feedback Just wanna say that I found this question and the one immediately before this sooo hard. I spent about 30 min on the last question and 15 min on this one. I got both right, but they are really really hard. I feel like there might be a skill here that I dont know about that wold help me?

in general when theres a 'you try' I usually get the first couple wrong and go slowly/ then go quicker and start getting more correct and pick up my speed, but this time it was the opposite...

So my question is how do you know you're looking for a full rule based on the QS and not a details. When we did PSA we had some questions that were about looking for 'rules' (which is a full argument that matches the shape of the current example, and we had 'application' which is when we look for a detail - usually part of the premise that would strengthen the application of the implicit rule and make it more likely that the conclusion would be true.

so how would I know what to look for here based on the QS?

In PSA we knew to hunt for a rule when it read:

Which one of the following, if assumed, most helps to justify the reasoning in the archaeologist's argument?

(Look for rule)

In PSA we knew to hunt for an application when it read:

The principle stated above, if valid, most helps to justify the reasoning in which one of the following arguments?

(Have rule, look for application. )

Im trying to abstract from PSA to SA -- is it when the question clearly states that there is a principal stated above that you go and look for a application but when its not mentioned, the assumption is that you should go and look for the rule or argument?

I'm confused what's wrong w C --

The video didn't address that one of the concerns is that information can be lost, so it is true that CURRENTLY we know the archeological considerations derived from the Ms being in their location (ie material), but perhaps later future As who are studying the Ms wont have the information - we already explicitly stated that the fact that we have it now doesn't mean future As will have it later - which means it can wreck their study -- and therefore should be kept.

I listened to the explanation on why C is wrong twice more and this is what I understand now. What the QS is asking is: How does A relate to B based on a rule that makes A relevant to B

So, we are looking for the implied rule NOT for another reason that the rule should apply. The way I'm imagining the structure/ shape of this is

IF A

And A is X, Y

Then B

If A then B is the shape of the rule - which is the answer we need to be looking for

What AC C does here is add a Z. Its basically saying:

IF A

And A is X,Y, Z

Then B

But that isn't what the QS is asking - for more support that the RULE should be applied to this situation

What the QS is asking is WHY the existing As of X/Y in this situation apply to B -- here : what is the rule, how is it relevant?

Now if we were wondering about application, AC C is actually more ideal answer choices A

But A, even though not ideal (how the heck do you know its true? What an insane sweeping generalization -- so so weak) actually does answer the question. A would have been an easier choice if it read something like "archeological considerations are a factor in moving stuff" the fact that it said "only" REALLY threw me off, but even though it seems to be offering information that isn't apparent, it still creates a Rule (IF A then B) which explains why the XY of A is relevant to B

smug satisfaction?!

How would you handle a casual chain in a premise in a prompt if it was a weaken question?

I get why (B) is the answer, but Im still confused why (E) isnt the answer. Someone wrote below that it copied a style we saw previously, and there the logic held, here it didnt.

I understand that "believe" and "know" can discredit it -- so thats an easy cross out, although hard to catch, but suppose it had said "know" or suppose "believe" is enough to proceed:

Doesn't the fact that people who are more susceptible to SC using SS mean that if they wouldn't, they would get it more -- but it doesn't mean they wont get SC at all, only that now, they will get it at a lower rate. The fact that specifically people who are prone to SC use SS -- and that is what we can attribute the rise in SS use to-- doesn't mean the SC rate will go down -- bc those are the people who are most likely to get it in the first place!

Although now that I wrote it out I see the hole in it and how it doesn't in fact follow the pattern we saw last (about smoking and heart disease)

Good luck all!

my gosh!! me too! what a sigh of relief

Im confused by the use of the middle sentence (Coral reefs are colorful, and, therefore, camouflage the colorful fish) as both a hypothesis and a conclusion

it is a H for the phenomena of why fish by coral reefs have colors

it is a conclusion for the P of After all, animal species use camouflage to protect themselves.

I guess Im just struggling with understanding the interplay here between how this middle sentence can be both the hypothesis and the conclusion

I guess its functioning differently in relation to different parts of the prompt? but it feels like I can see how its a hypothesis but its harder for me to understand how its a conclusion (premise and conclusion are like throwing a ball and being caught). The video said something about the use of 'after all' as being a introductory term for a premise, but then how do I know that it realtes to that middle sentence as a conclusion? I tried to go back to my notes-- I remember at the end of the foundational stuff there was a section where the videos tried to explain the relationship between premise> conclusion and phenomena> hypothesis, but then I went back and I think it was more about wondering if the relationship between cause> effect is actually cuasla or correlative and then how you would use P>H in that case. I dont know if it was covered or I was just supposed to know this? Anyone can explain? Or perahps Im overcomplicating it?

I'm so confused I feel like crying in front of my computer screen. this is hard. Also, when. I was at the lessons that said to come back. I felt like the general understanding was that it was above our abilities, but this feels like I should understand it and I just don't, which is of course worse. I'm so lost. Didn't even get one right. Perhaps I Have to rewatch all these videos again. I am really having a hard time here.

the bidirectional some is remind me of the subscript letters we made use of in other lessons. Do they function the same way?

John is in Group A

can be expressed

John > Group A

AND would be just as true to say

Johnₐ

Is this accurate?

no thats wrong

Some A are B- negation: no A are B

All A are B - negation: some A are B

Many A are B- negation: few A are B

^ I think thats accurate

can it be true to say that 'some' includes 'many' and 'all' and when negating they will all revert back to the same negation of 'none'?

would it be true/ can you say a negation of #5:

all people enjoy the movies

could be

no people enjoy the movies?

all includes some and includes many

so the negation would be at least some and at least many people don't enjoy the movies

but why not 'no people enjoy the movies' as the negation of 'all people enjoy the movies'

I just looked back at my notes from lesson 16 and I see what the flaw in my quetsion is

If A then B

the contrapositive is if not B then not A

that would be the logical equivalent to

All people like movies

no people dont like movies

But we are not looking for the contrapositive, or a negation of one set, we are looking for a negation of the relationship between the two sets

all people enjy the movies

its not the case that all people enjoy the movies

the negation of the claim is at least some, perhaps many or perahps all don't enjoy movies

but if we made the claim 'all people don't enjoy movies' we aren't including all the possibilities of the negation of the set of 'all'

bc whose to say its not some & not many?

or whose to say its not many & not all?

It can be all, but doesn't have to be all

therefore, the valid negation of 'all people enjoy movies' is not 'no people enjoy movies' but rather 'some people don't enjoy movies'

Pro tip - if you are still confused, look back to the lesson on 'all'. I just did that and it helped. Heres why.

All is used as a conditional indicator for sufficient claims

All dogs are mammals

D>M

the negation of that couldn't possibly be:

if you are a dog then you are not a mammal

instead the negation would read:

Some mammals are not dogs

the example given in the negation of all lesson was if the quantified statement you are looking at reads:

All dogs are friendly

it wouldn't be correct to negate it by saying

all dogs are not friendly

instead you would have to say 'some dogs are not friendly'

saying all dogs are not friendly is negating something about group dog -- we dont care about group dog. we care about group dog as it relates to group friendly. Negation is about relationships. So, if you were to negate group dog as being not friendly, that doesnt help me with negation. Instead, I have to negate the fact that in every case group dog overlaps with group friendly by saying 'some dogs are not friendly'. some could mean all.

abnd back in Lesson 4 we stated that

some can include all (depending on the contxt)

so perhaps that is a simplified way of looking at this quetsion

omg yes finally - the last few lessons in the last unit were just awful. Im scared to continue studying just bc how hare those were -- just impossible. I hope it gets more doable now

For Q5 why cant you do:

Element of the offense> knowledge of existence of fact & high probability of its existence

Exception -- he doesn't believe it exists

Meaning, the domain is: element of offense

The conditions are: knowledge of existence of fact, & high probablity of existence

Can that work too?

or it needs to be that knowledge of existence of fact is always connected with element of the offense.

#feedback

It seems like Im not the only that feels this way, but I am lost in this video and the last two on embedded conditionals and kick it up to the domain. I know that there was a disclaimer on the last two to rewatch later, but I almost feel like the disclaimer should be -- don't watch now, come back to this later -- or even that you put it later. I understand that you put it here for clarity of categorization, but it really feels to me impossible to follow. And I watch them slowly, rewatch, take notes, rewatch again etc -- so Idk if this is really feasible. Even if you want to give a presentation of ideas so we have a sense of them without explaining but just defining so its somewhere in our memory would be less overwhelming

It just occurred to me, as Im doing this lesson, that we are using the word 'or' as a specialized term in this unit for two different functions.

1) or is part of the group 3 CI: negate sufficient

the example we gave in the 'or' lesson for group 3 negate sufficient terms (as I have it in my notes) is

Inclusive or: and/ or

EX: Jon must enroll in economics101 or PSC 101 this semester

/Econ→PSC

/PSC→ECON

2) the way we're using 'or' here as a disjunctive term

EX: (1) If the Chancellor's nefarious plan succeeds, then either Amidala failed to convince the Senate or the Jedi Knights failed their mission.

High level, the logical structure is group 1:

If A > B

This example: CS> AF or JF

At least one of these two events must have taken place: either amidala failed or the knights failed, or both.

I'm trying to think through how these are different/ and used differently.

I suppose in the first example it would have to read something like:

If john is in school, then he must enroll in econ101 or psc101

So the operative different in the use of 'or' is that in the first example the CI term is group 2: must for necessary, whereas if you move or to the part of the sentence where you relate to it as a disjunction, the CI term here is 'if' which makes the CI term group 1: sufficient

How about the example we are using here for 'or' which functions as a disjunction. How might we use it as a conditional indicator for negate sufficient?

Maybe something like:

If the Chancellor's nefarious plan succeeds, then either Amidala failed to convince the Senate or the Jedi Knights failed their mission.

EX: Jon must enroll in economics101 or PSC 101 this semester

Im getting tripped up to be honest bc in the example provided for disjunctive or, the form of the use of the word 'or' seems the same:

the chance sentence is a sufficient condition

the john sentence is negate sufficient

but to me it looks like or is functioning the same way in them

Im confused. Anyone can explain this to me? maybe doing the examples and watching the viceo will help

I see the way it was solved in the video just assumes that bc the word 'no' is the CI therefore it cant be connected to the term. Is it that simple? Can I apply this principle to future examples?

Thanks,

Im confused by #4.

No one is invited who did not RSVP. Rudy did not RSVP.

I saw someone wrote below to rewrite it to:

If you did not RSVP then you are not invited

That turns the CI into a sufficient indicator and then in lawgic its:

/RSVP>/Invited

Invited>RSVP

Im confused bc in the current form it seems to me that the CI should be 'no'

No is a group 4 CI: negate necessary. The rule is take whichever one, negate and put on the right side.

To me the symbols for this sentence would be:

If you did not RSVP then you are not invited

/RSVP

/Invited

This wont get you the right answer. Suppose you chose to negate RSVP and put it on the right

/Invited>RSVP

/RSVP>invited

This is wrong and I can even see why its wrong bc its a simple example. I see that the reason why its wrong is that I made the symbol for invited to be /invited just as I made the simple for RSVP to be /RSVP. It wasn't stated explicitly in the videos, but it seems like you are supposed to stick on a negation yourself when the sentence is saying 'not that'. So if the sentence is saying 'not invited' and 'not RSVP' shouldn't both have a negation? Unless it has to be that because the word 'no' is being used as a CI it cant have a dual function and also be used as part of the symbol/ attached to invited.

That doesnt seem like a very good solution to me. I see why I got it wrong in this example, bc its so simple. but Im afraid that if I were to come across a more complex exmaple with the word 'no' functioning as both a CI and what seems to me to be connected to the main idea/ term and I negate it I wont be able to see if its wrong or right. Or perhaps there is another reason why in this sentence you only negate /RSVP and you dont negate Invited? Im confused how I would solve this in a more complex framework