#help

Why doesn't the sentence "Some cultivars of corn are much more closely related morphologically to sorghum than to most other cultivars of corn" when rephrased turn into "Most cultivars of corn are much less closely related morphologically to sorghum than some other cultivars of corn?"

Isn't A v. B Some cultivars of corn v. Most other cultivars of corn?

Yes, "Others" in the second sentence is a negative referential because it refers to not 8th-grade teachers

You already seem to know what a referential is based on your sentence. The word "this" in your sentence is a referential. Without context, I would not know what the word "This" means. In this case, what are you referring to? The lesson. If you added a sentence before it saying "I just watched the lesson". Then the word "This" in your comment would refer to the lesson mentioned in the previous sentence, the referent. The word "This" in your sentence refers to the entire lesson thus making the lesson the referent.

I hope that made a bit more sense!

I reread the question and it makes more sense now. Thank you!

Thank you for clarifying! That makes sense and looking at it again I agree that it's a week argument because you have to make the assumption about pedestrians, etc

#help

While I got question 5 correct, I'm confused because the context could be seen as a premise to the conclusion. I know it is context but the knowledge we get from the context trips me up. Can anyone clarify this more, please?

The researchers in the examples in the video were described as female, but I see your point

#help Is this one of those things where we use outside knowledge? Or is this just a poor argument?

I'm confused on question 3. Nowhere in the premise does it say anything about pedestrians. How is it an argument?