I understand this explanation and I got this question right, but I don't understand one aspect of AC D. If listing an animal species as endangered triggers stronger anti-poaching laws, wouldn't it be harder for collectors to collect these animals, even if they desire them more because they seem more rate? So if anti-poaching laws are now more strict, wouldn't that account for this new interest in these animals? How is is there an increase in the decline of that species?

So for negating a conjunction, you have to switch out the "and" for an "or" and negate the conjuncts. but in the example, the conjuncts are already negated from the original contrapositive rule, so wouldn't they now be un-negated if they're negated again? I'm confused

Hi! I'm confused on when we use the indicator as a part of the idea and when not. for Question 2, in the sentence "no creatures with powerful wings are loyal companions," we didn't use "no" in the video explanation as a negative to either idea, and only added the negation when we applied the translation rule, but in Question 3, we're told to use the "no" in "no one can venture into Mordor" as part of that idea and use it to negate it. Should the rule of thumb be to just not use it to negate the idea and was Question 3 just the exception because there were two indicators?