@JeffreyRamirez Remember that you do not include the conditional indicator in your analysis. The indicator word is telling you that what comes next is the important part. "Always" is the indicator word, everything after that word is the sufficient condition, but the word "always" itself is not part of the sufficient condition.

@Jbshallenberger I had the same thought, but I think it would change if it said something like "Only oral myths that have survived were eventually written down."

As a thought experiment, if there were 5 oral myths that were written down, then all 5 of those survived because they were written down. There may be 10 total surviving oral myths, but it is not a necessary condition that all of them be written down. The other 5 may have survived for other reasons (maybe they are really captivating stories that never needed to be written down.)

Maybe another way to think about it is to say that even if we remove the word "only" from the question stimulus, it would not change the meaning of the sentence:

"The only oral myths that have survived are the ones that were eventually written down."

Typo in the first sentence under the Translating to Lawgic subtitle, lol.

"Before translating statement to Lagic..."

should probably say

"Before translating statements to Lawgic..."

@LaneyWilliams The way I interpret this is saying that being a Jedi and incapable of using the force is mutually exclusive. Those two things cannot be true at the same time. Either you are a jedi and are capable of using the force OR are incapable of using the force because you're not a jedi.

Is this sound logic: "If one is not a mammal, one is not a cat. Athena is a cat, so she is a mammal."

Translated to lawgic:

/M -> /C

(little A)C

----

(little A)M

@EricPreneta I had this same thought, I'm trying to work it out too. Here's how I'm thinking about it:

One of the assumptions in this argument is that there are no other animals that could've knocked over the trash can. That is just as likely to be true as it is false because we have no idea about any other possible animalian culprits.

If there was another premise that said there has never been another animal inside the home except for Mr. Fat Cat, then this assumption would be much more likely to be true. Not 100% likely to be true because maybe it's possible the window was open and a bird flew in and knocked over the trash can, but very likely.

On the other hand, consider an additional premise saying that Big Dog was in the house at the time of the crime. Then, the assumption that no other animal could've knocked over the trash can becomes less likely. Not 100% unlikely, but less likely to be true.

In these hypotheticals, the assumption does lie somewhere on a spectrum. The assumption that no other animal could've knocked over the trash can is not 100% true or 100% false.

Sorry for the essay, it's helpful to type out thoughts. Hopefully this helps, and let me know your thoughts!