Is there a mistake in the video explanation of the comparative in answer choice D? Doesn't "no more likely" indicate that the surgery group is just as likely (equally likely) or LESS likely to snore than the non-surgery group? The video explanation says just as likely or MORE likely. Am I parsing the grammar incorrectly?

For #9, couldn't one argue that Luke was acting in the best interest of Yoda (because he was concerned that Leia would waste Yoda's time)? In that case, Luke's actions would fall inside the exception, and the rule "intent-misrep → wrong" would not apply.

I'm having difficulty understanding why disjunction in the necessary condition can't be visually represented by "splitting the arrow."

The first example states, "If the Chancellor's nefarious plan succeeds, then either Amidala failed to convince the Senate or the Jedi Knights failed their mission." According to 7Sage, "at least one (but possibly both) of the two conditions must trigger when the sufficient condition triggers." Couldn't that be drawn like this?

AF

↗

CS

↘

JF

In this diagram (at least, the way I'm interpreting it), the Chancellor's plan succeeding (CS) could trigger Amidala failing to convince the Senate (AF). It could trigger Jedi Knights failing their mission (JF). Alternatively, it could trigger BOTH AF and JF. Doesn't that accord with this statement: "At least one (but possibly both) of the two conditions must trigger when the sufficient condition triggers"?

I have a hypothesis about what my misunderstanding might be. Perhaps the diagram above implies that BOTH AF and JF will trigger if CS is triggered (which doesn't leave room for the "or" interpretation). In other words, the way I've drawn it suggests that AF and JF can't happen independently of each other (BOTH must happen if CS happens, which isn't what the sentence says). Is that where I'm going wrong?

#help

EDIT: Sorry my diagram isn't showing up properly, but you get what I'm trying to say haha.