Most large nurseries sell raspberry plants (guaranteed to be disease-free) primarily to commercial raspberry growers.

All we know is that MOST of these large nurseries are selling plants to commercial raspberry growers. (AKA: anyone could be selling to anyone. Large nurseries can be selling plants to growers that are not commercial. We do not know anything beyond what the stimulus is telling us. We have to consider everything we read in the stimulus to be true)

The only thing we can be absolutely confident about is that the plants these large nurseries are selling are disease-free.

Definitely request more lessons like this where the main focus is just going through additional examples. Helps a lot!!! Especially for those of us who typically learn something through pattern recognition.

Will the concept of direct evidence failing to prove an argument be explained further in upcoming lessons? If you have direct evidence that strongly supports a casual argument, why would it not be proved AKA making it valid? If I say that this thing caused this other thing, and I have the evidence to back it up, I intuitively consider it to be valid. Maybe I'm being hypercritical. Idk. Guess I will see.

#help So I've been dragging my teeth through figuring out conditional relationships and as soon as I feel like I'm getting it, I end up somehow at 0 again.

For the plot and success example, I am confused how the relationship works. If someone can check me it would be very much appreciated.

Plot -> success

Being an engaging plot is sufficient for it finding commercial success but it is not guaranteed because it may receive commercial success by something other than being an engaging plot. (maybe the author is super famous which is why it found success)

On the flip side, commercial success is necessary for an engaging plot?? Isn't that quite literally the inverse of the above? When I put it into chatgpt: "in order for a plot to be truly engaging, it must somehow be commercially successful. This would imply that only those plots that end up being commercially successful are engaging — but this is often false."

So, does that mean this is just a severely weak argument? If that's the case, then I don't think these type of arguments should be exemplified at this point in the curriculum. Feels like we should cover weak arguments when we have a firm grasp over this concept because this example made me feel like I didn't really understand the conditions. However, it may turn out that I did, and it was actually the sentence at fault.

Once again, I'm taking everything with a grain of salt. I could very much be wrong but it's frustrating when learning this concept becomes unstable.

I got it right and didn't do too bad with time, but I did basically forget everything from this module lol. I just scribbled symbols that made sense to me that were essentially renditions of all of the rules we have learned so maybe it might be beneficial to really make the rules your own and manipulate them so they make the most sense to you

I started the day with this lesson but quickly realized I was super lost so I went back and reviewed everything in this module. Happy to say that I just went through this lesson at the end of the day, and it's definitely making a lot more sense! I recommend doing the same if you are confused.

For everyone who is having trouble with breaking down contrapositive arguments, I suggest getting a white board where you can break everything down and really work through the argument a couple words at a time. I broke it down on my board and found this example to actually be really helpful in exposing us to what our future careers will entail. lol!

I love when one of my predictions is in the answer choices

We are so back

Needed this win

and they want me to answer this within 2 minutes????

How are you going to compare 40 tons with 9 tons

omg it felt like A and E were saying the exact same thing but I anchored myself to the stimulus and had to isolate the conclusion to get the right answer