I mistakenly translated "many" as some instead of all. I noticed my error in blind review and got the correct answer.

#feedback

Some alphabets are not phonetic.

alphabets ←s→ /phonetic

/phonetic ←s→ alphabets

alphabets → phonetic

/phonetic → /alphabets (Is the contrapositive useful here?)

Would the negation of most be equivalent to the idea of few?

/(A ‑m→ B)

or

A ←s→ /B

Is this correct?

/(A ‑m→ B)

or

A ←s→ /B

Is this correct?

Would you negate most statements like all statements?

Does the negation use a similar principle to simplify embedded conditionals?

The interchange between most and many in this explanation is jarring. #feedback

Know that it exists. When you're ready to use the technique, come back and try to apply it.

I guess you're supposed to choose which framework feels the most intuitive.

Don't confuse embedded conditionals with the transitive property.

You could go even further with De Morgan's Law.

The contrapositive of the embedded conditional could be used to make the conjunction. So A > /B > C = A> /C >B

A and /B > C

or

A and /C > B

I was following along and then bam! JY did witchcraft. His embedded conditional rule is so helpful. I'm mad. I haven't seen this before. Why don't they teach logic in high school?

Question two kicked me in the behind because I used conjunctions in my translations and mistranslated an indicator. Only a minute per question is rough.

The visual representation helps so much.

Until he explained how they were different. I assumed they were the same.

Put differently, Validity means the premise logically supports the conclusion. (The math makes sense.)

This blew my mind. Thank you for explaining sufficiency vs necessity.

In my legal reasoning class at GSU, we used the terminology deductive reasoning (formal logic) and inductive reasoning (informal logic).

It's a temporal comparison, now vs some time ago. The key phrase is "accustomed to"; it leads the reader to infer that the sample size was doing something different. This was a hard comparison to parse. I instantly understood who the winner was, but it was unclear what the alternative object was. English can be conniving.

I have a habit of simplifying long lists of characteristics for comparison. Does it matter if I successfully identify the winner of the comparison?

Yes, by virtue of grammar rules. A better way to understand this question would be to put it in the affirmative. I.E. The genetic differences between shrimp populations are more similar than those between the shrimp and any other marine species. In essence, the author is saying that shrimp populations are genetically more similar than shrimp are compared to other marine species.

The phrase "much less significant" is awkward. A better phrase would be "genetically similar."

I'm curious to see if anyone else did this.