Is there a list of types of reasoning we should expect in this section? Like past-future, part-to-whole, etc. #feedback

for #10, could we combine the claims by saying "((residents ←s→ /aware) hp-coffee —m→ 5mins+). or does this complicate things? #help#feedback

could we translate this to Lawgic to "there exists at least one student in Ms. Stoops' class who can read" instead? seems more intuitive #help#feedback

idk if it's just me, but the variables in these lessons make the concepts so much harder to grasp. Instead of "OpNo and 3+Ms → R," something simpler to read like "P and Q → R" would be a lot easier. #feedback

Is there a list of all the types of argument flaws that were covered in this section? #feedback #help

could we have answered #2 by using the disjunction and conjunction instead of the conditional? #help#feedback

I'm confused on how 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 would be considered conditional statements. For example in 8.2, yes there is a relationship between digital books vs. non-digital books, and it makes a claim about their relationship, but there is nothing conditional about that statement. No condition is being met. #help #feedback

If I'm having trouble with SA questions, which logic lessons should I go back to? There are a lot of foundational logic lessons, so if someone can point out which ones would be the most helpful for sufficient/ necessary assumption questions, I'd appreciate it #feedback

should we be able to get the hardest difficulty all correct at this point in the course? i still cant get anything labeled "very high" correct, and idk if i should be worried about this. #feedback #help