In this Lawgic, you put C-->M (subset-->superset) but in the previous lesson, it was J-->F (superset-->subset). ?.

For 3.2, "Animal communication is a universal phenomenon that has existed across different species throughout history. Biologists have conducted many comparative analyses of animal communication across various species from various habitats."

Could it be argued that the second sentence is a premise for the conclusion of the first sentence?

I wonder if you can get away with only reading Simpson's paragraph in such questions. In this particular question, you can, but can we skip reading paragraphs in every case?

#feedback if you could put bookmarks on the video when he talks about the different answer choices, that would be helpful.

Is it true that MOST answer choices pertaining to the future (such as A and B in this example) are incorrect?