Analagous Tiger argument: Not all birds can fly. After all, ostriches are birds and they can only walk.

Analogous Disney argument: I have a bag with 5 marbles. 3 marbles are red. Two marbles are blue. I pulled a marble at random. It is not red. Therefore, it must be blue.

Analogous trashcan argument: This morning I drove past a car crash, with a red and blue car. The front of the red car was dented, and the side of the blue car was dented, in a similar way that happens when one car T-bones another. The owner of the red car got out and was stumbling in similar way that people do when they are drunk. Therefore, my conclusion is that the owner of the red car was drunk driving, and was the responsible party.

#help

I get why B is wrong, but not why E is right. The rule, "Any measure that reduces the rate of traffic accidents should be implemented," can only apply if we KNOW that the proposed measure reduces the rate of traffic accidents. But we don't know that, since the study only applied to HIGH-SPEED roadways, not all roadways. The premise leaves room for the possibility that a uniform speed limit would actually INCREASE accidents, in which case E wouldn't apply? I'm confused

not to be that person, but for a curriculum that's constantly telling us "grammar is key," you think it would know the difference between 'its curators' and 'it's curators'...

#help

I'm confused why D weakens the argument? The conclusion is that exposure to HM increases AB resistance, 'somehow.' It doesn't provide a mechanism by which that increase happens. If D is true, that most HM contain AB, wouldn't that provide the mechanism by which that increase happens, which is that the two are often found together? Are we supposed to assume that the conclusion implies that HM, by their inherent property, are the cause of AB resistance? B doesn't answer the question of how HM lead to AB resistance. Maybe I'm thinking of this too much from a scientist's reasoning, and not a logician's reasoning, lol

hit it like rompompompom!

#Help

For 1, why is the negation 'some X wings don't have hyperdrives?'

If I'm saying 'not all X wings have hyperdrives,' doesn't that include the possibility that no X wings have hyperdrives? And saying 'some' excludes that possibility?

*#help

*

Why is it that the negation of 'all A are B' is 'some A are not B'? After all, we discussed that 'some' implies at least one. But if I'm saying that 'not all A are B,' doesn't that leave room for the possibility that no A are B? I understand that those two statements aren't equivalent, but it doesn't make sense to me that the negation is 'SOME A are B' if there is the possibility of 0 A being B.

For Q3, could we also translate it as:

opera company + /popular --> funding. ?

as in, if you are an opera company and you do not produce popular operas, you must have funding?

would that be logically equivalent? any help/explanation appreciated:)