@sammersx literally same. 161 and I had a gnarly cold the weekend I took my test. I’m gonna partially attribute my score to that to make myself feel better lol

5/5 yessirrrr

@funkmasterjnj If you break it down it makes a little more sense,

statement: All X-Wings have hyperdrives.

negate: It is not the case that all X-Wings have hyperdrives. Some X-Wings do not have hyperdrives.

Lawgic: X-wings <-s-> /have hyperdrives

If we're negating the claim that all X-Wings have hyperdrives, then our point would be that some of them do not. Therefore when translating to Lawgic, it would need to reflect that sentiment by negating hyperdrives. If you wrote it as "X-Wings <-s-> have hyperdrives," it would be no different than the initial statement because "some" CAN include all. So if you say some X-Wings have hyperdrives, it could be logically inferred that all X-Wings have hyperdrives, meaning that nothing was negated from the original statement.

Hope this helps :)