I initially got it wrong, but then got it right on the BR. It makes perfect sense, I just didn't read it because I thought A was right, but it's not because A gets the first clause with the second, in my opinion.

I'm confident the timing will come, but I got this right!

How would we know when to negate a relationship vs taking the contrapositive? I'm slightly confused about this.

4/5, I'm coming for that 5/5

This looks like the sufficient and necessary conditions. I know we're on a totally different lesson from conditional statements and I don't want to confuse myself with this, but it just sounds (and looks) very similar.

I got it right, way over time but who cares rn!!!!!!!! :-p

For the contrapositive version: Why, in uni-conditions, we flip and negate both, but in bi-conditions, we don't flip the claims?

This was by far the hardest question, FOR ME PERSONALLY, in this section, based on the formality of the stimulus. It contained a mixture of conditional and set/restrictions, which really confused me. It took me a minute, but I understand the formality of the stimulus now.

Examples that helped me from what ChatGPT generated:

Suppose I say:

All California residents over 18 who are registered voters may vote if they appear at the polling station.

Full Lawgic:

CA + 18+ + RV + Poll → Vote

You could write:

Domain: CA + 18+ + RV

Rule: Poll → Vote

Because the interesting question is usually:

Did they show up?

Not:

Are they a California resident?

@jaydenca ahhh I see what J.Y. did., my initial interpretation is the contrapostive version of this.

I got #4 wrong because my intuition led me to believe that in this context, but meant "or" instead or "and".

Question;

Will there ever be any cases where a conditional indicator would be used as a disjunction or vice versa?

5/5!

I translated 5 into Lawgic and it made sense, but my intuition made more sense here.

This is the best I've felt since studying, picked A without a blink of an eye once I had the Lawgic down 😛

Needed this!

What really helped me out is putting Exercise 2 into Chat GPT and having it break down exactly why it was wrong and giving me simplifed examples of the same formal logic. Think of these examples:

Valid: A > B

A

Therefore B

Valid: A > B

Not B

Therefore Not A

Invalid: A > B

B

Therefore A (Affirming the consequent)

That's what exercise 2 is doing. and that's why it's important to understand these three formal arguments that combine together with helping you break these types of questions down into more understandable terms. Hope that helps bc it did for me :-)

Man how are you supposed to accurately know when to use a CONDITIONAL INDICATOR as its purpose or as a statement being used in a conditional chain??? That makes absolutely no sense at all. This is driving me insane :-(

@jaydenca You can also use these same rules for Question #5

Ahhh I see now. So in question 3, it has the statement, "No one can venture into Mordor unless they are brave," which has two negation indicators in one clause. In this case, unless is a group 3 indicator and no is a group 4 indicator, so you'd just negate both like so:

/brave > /mordor

contraposes to

mordor > brave

So in English terms, this is the stimulus: If someone carries the One Ring, they will venture into Mordor. No one can venture into Mordor unless they are brave.

This is Lawgic:

One Ring > Mordor

/brave > /Mordor

contraposes to

Mordor > brave

Chained conditional:

One Ring > Mordor > Brave

/Brave > /Mordor > /One Ring

Ayeee I got it right. It definitely took me longer because the answer "C" was flipped, but the formal logic made sense according to the stimulus. I just have to work on identifying that faster.

@Elideebeep You're a gem for this!

I confused including introductory modifiers in #1 like, "In surrounding counties..." into the Lawgic translation for some reason.

I UNDERSTAND 🤝🏾

@yesterdayseeker I agree, the circles are a bit confusing. Understanding the arrow and the different sides sufficiency and necessity are on the arrow helps. Also, learning how to chain together claims in deeper passages helps.

@wgresh No that is LITERALLYYYYY what I am saying. He said it group three, you can think of unless as introducing a necessary condition, but uses it in the sufficient sense. That just messed my understanding up. Can anyone help! :-(

I chose B on the actual and C on the BR, it definitely makes the most sense.