Ok, this was acc a fun one to get wrong, learned a lot :))

So, to justify the application, do all the sufficient conditions in the rule need to be triggered or will there be choices where only some are triggered yet it's the best one out of the 5?

X is a member of "not B" or X is not a member of B.

So if all pets are nice, and most pets are dogs, then that means some dogs (the ones that are pets) have to be nice.

pets → nice

pets ‑m→ dogs

dogs ←s→ nice

That would mean not being a unicorn is sufficient for pooping rainbows which is not the negation of the original.

Oh and for quantifiers, you're not actually trying to negate the whole relationship, just whatever the quantifier is. So if it said "all small animals are more rapid than large animals" then it's enough to use "some" for the negation since that cancels out the "all" without taking apart the relationship.

It's just for conditional negations that you need to completely cancel out the relationship.

I was confused about the same thing, but here's how I understand it. If the relationship introduced is a subset-superset one, then the negation has to be strong enough to completely cancel it out. I imagine it like a bubble within another, and I need to completely remove the inside one to negate the statement.

So, in this case, small animals are completely within the superset of "move more rapidly than large animals" and to negate that, you can to completely remove them and say "they either move just as rapidly or slower than large animals".

Let me know if that makes sense or if I'm gaslighting myself into understanding lol.

I think the "only" refers to "one" which is a placeholder for the terminal buds mentioned earlier.

So can read it as "only the terminal bud on the main stem develop", in which case, the terminal bud is necessary and develop is sufficient. Hope that makes sense.

I'm interested!