I still have a question. Do "all" statements always negate differently than group 1 conditional indicator statements? From my understanding of the material, this is how an all statement negates:

A some arrow /B

And this is how a conditional statement negates:

A and /B

But I think where I'm still confused is whether these are interchangeable since all is a group 1 indicator? I just want to know, if I see a group 1 indicator or an all statement on the LSAT, which translation I should use to get the right answer of if using either is fine.

I'm confused about question 2. How can the contrapositive of "Some alphabets are not phonetic" be "all alphabets are not phonetic" when we were told explicitly in previous modules that you can't take the contrapositive of some statements?

I have a question about exercise 2. One of the sentences reads, "Amidala can not deliver her speech unless the attempt to assassinate her fails." This sentence contains both a group 4 and group 3 indicator, cannot and unless. The correct answer uses the "cannot" to translate it into lawgic using the group 4 rule, but why wouldn't you also be able to translate it to group 3 since it contains "unless?" Is the general guideline that if you encounter two indicator words in a sentence from two different groups, you should use the translation rule for the first indicator in the sentence?

I have a question about negations that seem to be written into sentences. In number 5, it reads "Where there is no communication, family ties become frayed and eventually snap." and the right answer identifies one subject as communication and immediately negates it because there is an "no" in front of it.

I answered this differently, and I originally wrote my answer as

no communication --> family ties fray

when the answer given is

/communication --> family ties fray

My question is whether my answer is logically wrong for the exam? Also, is there a rule I can reliably follow if I see "no" before a subject then I negate it immediately? Thanks