#help #feedback "if N or O is not adopted, then M cannot be adopted" What is this statement's contrapositive in English? I.e., what is M → N and O's application in English? Does it mean that if M was adopted then both N and O were adopted? Are we reading the "or" in the first statement as "and" or inclusive "or"?

I can do this and so can you: 170+!!!

#feedback I think there is a typo in the answer to 1.1, it says "There are no holidays to in the month of August" under Logically Identical Variants. The "to" should be removed.

I def overcomplicated this but my explanation for the answer is as follows. It is not entirely correct, so if anyone has an easier/shorter/more straightforward explanation, please let me know, ty!

Q: Which of the following does not weaken but rather strengthens or is irrelevant to the argument that cave paintings are not descriptions of painters' diets?

The premise of the counterargument to the predominant theory relies on an assumption that must be true if the predominant theory is presupposed to be correct.

Objectives:

Find options which weaken the argument that [cave paintings are not descriptions of painters' diets]. Those are not the right answer.

Find options which either strenghten or are irrelevant to the argument that cave paintins are descriptions of painters' diets. This is the right answer.

We dislike answers that suggest that the predominant theory can be false and/or that the counterargument is weakened/likely false. We like answers where PT is irrelevant/strenghtened/can be true as long as CA could be true/is irrelevant or strengthened.

PT/CA combo which indicate wrong answer:

W/W

I/W

W/I

PT/CA combo which indicant correct answer:

I/S

I/I

S/I

S/S

A. Once on these islands, the cave painters hunted and ate land animals.

Predoominant theory: is irrelevant

Counterargument: weakens/is likely false because it does not suggest that cave painters ate fish, althought the option does not say "the cave painters only hunted and ate land animals", so it is possible that fish was a part of their diets. If the assumption that they ate fish is true, then PT could be true, if false then it could be false, but making the assumption is a leap.

Overall: weakens.

This weakens the counterargument because this suggests that the painters ate land animals instead of fishes, which explains why there are no fish paintings.

B. Parts of the cave paintings on the islands did not survive the centuries.

Predominant theory: is irrelevant

Counterargument: weakens/could be false, the truth of this statement would depend on the assumption about painters' fish consumption being correct.

Overall: weakens.

This weakens the argument that the predominant theory is false. However, the argument that the cave paintings were descriptions of the painters' diets, because they had to, at some point, eat fish but there were no fish paintings in the cave could be true.

C. The cave paintings that were discovered on the islands depicted many land animals.

Predominant theory: is irrelevant, it may or may not suggest that the painters ate many land animals

Counterargument: is irrelevant, it makes no suggestions about whether cave painters ate fish

Overall: irrelevant.

D.

PT: irrelevant

CA: weakens/is likely false

overall: weakens

E.

PT: weakens/is false, provides alternate theory

CA: irrelevant

overall: weakens

I am interested too!

#HELP Hello, I am so lost. Is this the full and comprehensive list of contrapositives for conditionals with conjunctions? And are my following summaries of the functions of or and and correct?

A and B → C

/C → /A or /B

A or B → C

/C → /A and /B

A → B and C

/B or /C →/A

A → B or C

/B and /C → /A

For the and conditionals, regardless of whether it is in the sufficient clause or necessary part of the condition, there is only one (1) way for the condition to be fulfilled:

- If both elements on the left and right of "and" are true, independent of whether it is in the sufficient or necessary clause.

For the or conditionals, regardless of whether it is in the sufficient or necessary part of the condition, there are three (3) ways for the condition to be fulfilled:

- If the element on the left of "or" is true but the element on the right of "or" is not, independent of whether it is in the sufficient or necessary clause.

- If the element on the right of "or" is true but the element on the left of "or" it not, independent of whether it is in the sufficient or necessary clause.

- If both the elements on the left and right of "or" are true, independent of whether it is in the sufficient or necessary clause.

I was really confused about why E is wrong here but I think I figured out a way to explain it in straightforward terms:

My top choices for this were B and E; B because it is directly supported by the stim, no assumptions, inferences, leaps etc. needed.

For E to be correct, we would have to assume that it has been at least a few years since the antibiotics were used against bacteria X. If this was clearly provided as part of option E or if we make this assumption (bit of a stretch for this kind of question), E would also be a correct answer.

However, B gives us the exactly what we need (all claims fully supported by stim) without having us make any assumptions, thus making it the most correct answer. Essentially, if there are two options where one requires no assumptions and another is almost right but leaves some gaps open for us to fill in, then the former is the best choice.

Does this make sense? Please let me know if I’m thinking about this in the wrong way!