Should I treat the middle link as a sub-conclusion? My reasoning follows this logic: A provides support for B, B in itself receives support from A but also includes support for C. Am I wrong in my reasoning?

Could someone please explain what I should do when the idea I choose to negate is already a negative statement? Do I negate that into a positive? Or should I negate both?

I am a bit confused and need some clarity. The argument's conclusion was "Not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet." With that in mind, the tiger example used in this context was to make the case that not every mammal is suitable. Wouldn't that assumption lie in the fact that the person is even considering getting an aggressive mammal as a pet? The person could be getting a meek mammal. So, the tiger example already assumes that the person will be getting an aggressive mammal. Or am I just overanalyzing this?

#feedback, What should I do? I keep getting the conclusion correct except for the "some relationships." What can I do to improve?

#feedback, can I accurately negate "some" with "all/no" without concerning myself with the preface is it not the case"? Essentially whenever/wherever I am negating "some" just treat it as "all/no."

#feedback, with conditional the statements can I accurately negate only the " necessary condition" and not have to bother about the sufficient condition, all the time?

#Feedback, can I accurately negate "all" using "some" without having to use the " It is not the case" preface statement.