#help is it fair to assume that the last sentence of the stimulus is a sub-conclusion rather than a conclusion? I interpreted it as that and I stated that the conclusion was the fact that "North Americans were more concerned about their personal finances than about politics," and this made me narrow my answer choice down to E

interested!

#help Can someone PLZ explain the absolute claim example to me? I'm struggling :')

#help for Q1, is it correct to go about it this way?

The statement reads, "Unless we drive out the poachers, none of the pandas that relocated to this part of the forest will prosper."

Since "unless" is a Group 3 Indicator, I identified two groups ("drive out poachers" and "relocated pandas will prosper") and negated one of them (I negated "drive out poachers" below") and made that the "sufficient condition" to get the following conditional relationship:

Relationship: /Drive out poachers ---> /Relocated pandas will prosper (if we do not drive out the poachers, then the pandas related to this part of the forest will not prosper)

Contrapositive: Relocated pandas will prosper ---> Drive out poachers (if relocated pandas do prosper, then we have driven out the poachers)

Is this correct? :'(

#help What even is 18...? This is the logic I followed:

Statement reads : "If something is necessary for human health, then it should be provided by an organization whose primary purpose is the promotion of health."

It is an "if...then..." statement and since "if" introduces the sufficient condition, I said that the relationship would be as follows:

Relationship: necessary ---> provided

Contrapositive: /provided ---> /necessary (If it is not provided by an organization whose primary purpose is the promotion of health, then it is not something that is necessary for human health)

Am I wrong in going about it this way...? I feel like the explanation that was offered under the "Answer" tab confused me even more

#help I'm super confused with #9 and this was my logic...

Domain: In surrounding counties

Remaining clause: "...where hunting is permitted, the size of the deer population has not increased in the last eight years."

Since "where" is a Group 1 Indicator (which introduces sufficient), I did the following:

Conditional: Hunting Permitted ---> /Size Increased (if hunting is permitted in these countries, then the size of the deer has not increased in the last eight years)

Contrapositive: Size Increased ---> /Hunting Permitted (if the size of the deer has increased in the last eight years, then hunting is not permitted in these counties).

So how would this not be a conditional?

#help For #12, since /R ---> B and /R ---> J, why do we conclude that both Bran AND Jon must be killed and not that Bran OR Jon must be killed? In other words, why is that they BOTH must get killed, and not that one OR the other (inclusive OR) must be killed?

Plz let me know if my question doesn't make any sense, I'm running on two hours of sleep :')

Would it be fair to use "Negate Necessary" translations with these statements?

#help How would I use the Negate Necessary (Group 4) Translation with this statement: "An imperial palace cannot be in the Tang dynasty and not have glass windows"?

#help I know this was already explained in the comments, but I am still not understanding the concept. For this statement, "one cannot become Jedi unless one possesses extraordinary discipline," how would I use "Negate Necessary" (Group 4) Translation since the statement contains the word "cannot"?