How do we know which logical indicator overrules another? For example, I was going to diagram few as some, but then in the video they say UNLESS is the main logical indicator, which is why few goes on one or the other side of it, but idk how you make that distinction?

@mrickett I skip the passage dissection and go straight into the questions. If i get one wrong, I listen to how he broke down the passage because obviously I analyzed something wrong or missed a key point (which I would also do for LR). IMO it's so important to do practice questions alone before he explains to see your weak points

saw 103 comments on this bad boy and knew to not pick my first gut answer lol

the most sick and twisted question i've ever stumbled upon

Is this an ok way to think about the question? A "primary function" question asks us not to describe what the paragraph says but asks what its function is in the broader argument. So even if B was correct (which again, I'm having trouble seeing how it's not and I definitely couldn't see why it's not under time pressure), it doesn't address the broader function of the paragraph?

I understand that we can only prove ~J with first rule or J with second rule but how do we know that the answer choices wont be about whether the computer is used in the operation (first rule) or comptob or RGBEL which we can prove by taking the contropositive of the second rule. Why is it just about justice? Or do we only know they relate to justice/non-justice bc all the answer choices conclude that

Can someone explain to me why E is not right. When I diagrammed I did good meal->good food->good soil->good farming->good culture and then the contrapositive is not good culture->not good farming->not good soil->not good food->not good meal. Taking the contrapositive, doesn't that show that when food is bad, or "not good food" is caused by, or because of not good soil and not good farming. I know that I'm making some sort of necessary/sufficient mistake but can someone explain what it is.

Confused about the wizard one. Can someone explain where in the lesson we learned that All A are B + All A are C → Some B are C? Is this a rule of Lawgic? I understand intuitively but in terms of diagramming it doesn't follow.