strengthens/weakens do NAWT make sense to me. hoping if i keep trucking and drill some it will click??

why is he so sassy in this one

wait okay okay after sitting w this for like ten minutes i think i get it. most almonds are grown in cali. most cali produce is exported to brazil. produce does NOT have to include almonds. cali produce can be avocados, apples, cherries, corn, wheat, blah blah blah and yes it COULD include almonds MAYBE but almonds also could be the ONE THING that is not included in "most" of cali's produce.

i appreciate the strategy of "lawgic" for the harder questions but as a writer/reader i sometimes find it much easier to think it through with words rather than symbols. the formula is nice, but it gets a little too "math-y" for me lol

two and three are EVIL

i'm returning to these lessons again and I kept messing up #2. I group [planetary society will be endangered] at sufficient then [impacts from space] as necessary:

PSE --> IFS

/IFS --> /PSE

"If there are no impacts from space, then planetary society is not endangered"

but the CORRECT answer is sufficient clause is JUST [planetary society] and then necessary is the rest of the sentence.

PS --> EbIFS

/EbIFS --> /PS

"If it is not endangered by impacts from space, then it is not a planetary society"

I'm neglecting to "strip" the sentence first, I think?Because at it's base the sentence is "society will be endangered", where it is much easier to see okay WHAT type of society, and WHAT type of endangerment--those are the two concepts with tension.