I totally understand why this is right, but I'm sure I'm also right that there's more than one right answer. Here, look at my proof.

#feedback I think all of these are better understood with predicate logic and set theory. Maybe 7sage should consider redoing the module with a proper introduction of PL and ST rather than with ambiguous inference rules.

I guess the none quantifier is better understood in predicate logic, such that ∀x(A(x)→¬P(x)) where A(x) represents "x is an American," P(x) represents "x attended the dictator's party." This aligns better with "(for all x,) If x is an American, then x did not attend the dictator's party."