If I get the answer correct, I gloss the written explanation to confirm my thought process but do not watch the video.

Click "Quick View" above the video.

Wow, that is incredibly helpful. Thank you.

I wish we could answer the question before it gets dissected. Feels like missed practice.

With the way you've laid out the argument, you would have to make the assumption that all philosophy students are also university students. Under it's current structure, it's invalid. Even if we accept the assumption that they are uni students, it's still invalid because "some" statements simply don't provide enough information.

Consider the following hypothetical:

Group A (University Students): {Alice, Bob, Carol}

Group B (Philosophy Students, subset of A): {Bob, Carol}

Group C (Students with 4.0 GPAs): {Carol, Dave}

In this case:

A←s→B holds because some university students study philosophy (Bob and Carol).

B←s→C holds because some philosophy students have 4.0 GPAs (Carol).

However, we cannot conclude A←s→C because, based on the premises alone, we do not know if any university students (from Group A) who study philosophy also have 4.0 GPAs. While Carol is in all three groups, the premises don't provide information about all possible cases, and thus, the argument's conclusion isn't guaranteed by the premises.