I would love to join too!

I have the same question

I have the same confusion

Picked the right answer and then thought that "should/should not" implies that both are already eligible but essentially asks what makes someone qualified as "should" get it versus someone who "should not"?

I don't understand why A is not a correct paraphrase of the conclusion?

can you explain what this means?

No, I think this in lawgic would be:

A --> B

x/A --- x/B

which is invalid.

Can someone please explain the last example step-by-step? I am so lost.

For example 2, how do you know if "unless" Group 3 or "cannot" Group 4 is the conditional indicator to use?

For question 2, ""Cannot" is negating the concept "kill both Arya and Sansa." What does it mean to say that he cannot kill both of them? That means at a maximum he can only kill one of them. In other words, he can either kill none of them or one of them. In Lawgic, this means that if he does kill one of them, he cannot kill the other." Why doesn't this include him not killing both Arya or Sansa? it just says he can't kill both but not about him not killing both.