Same here! #help

@minjugo688 I have recently decided that I will be applying for the 2026 cycle rather than the 2025 cycle to better prepare myself for the application process. Since I would like to prepare for PS and other application components throughout next year, I would like to know how often to admissions change their application questions. Just in case I have to change my statements once apps open next year.

AH! Thank you!! I misunderstood the "negating conditional statements" lesson, this makes so much more sense now!

#help

Wait, so "←s→" is the same as "and"??

So given all of the quantifiers we covered, is this valid?

All → overwhelming majority → most → many → few → some

#help

Hi, I'm having trouble understanding the explanation for #1. The conditional statement's lawgic is: good → ben-other and intent.

In the explanation, it says "for an action to be regarded as "good," both conditions have to be met." This makes sense to me in English, because obviously the conditional statement is saying that you need both "ben-other" and "intent" for the sufficient good to happen.

I think I'm getting confused when referring back to the Conjunction (and) lesson, it states that each necessary condition is "independent" of the other necessary condition.

Doesn't that mean that "ben-other" could happen independently of whether "intent" could happen? and vice-versa, "intent" could happen independently of "ben-other"? #help

Actually, reviewing this with fresh eyes, I think I understand.

If it were to say, "not both" then, there could the possibility that the amphitheater would not be Roman and not contain water fountains, which is not what the original claim states.

#help For question 5.1 (Roman amphitheaters always contain water fountains)

I understand the Lawgic translation of ra --> wf or /wf ---> /ra

However I don't understand the Logically Identical variant example: An amphitheater cannot be Roman and not contain water fountains.

Wouldn't the lawgic translation for the variant be:

Symbols:

ra: roman amphitheater

wf: water fountains

Apply the rule "negate, necessary":

negate wf: /ra --> wf

negate roman: /wf --> ra

or if it is logically identical, wouldn't the variant need to say: An amphitheater cannot be BOTH Roman and not contain water fountains.

Or am I overthinking this?? Please help

Ahh I see, gotcha. Thank you!

Could you by chance explain the differences in explanations for exercises in 15 vs. 19? They both have "no less" claims, however 15 exercises explain it in a way that "B" would be equal/less, but 19 exercises explain it in a way that says "A" would be more/equal. I think that's why I am getting confused. Please help! Thank you!

This helped me think about it! So basically @dbauer is correct in which they state:

3. Common treatment is equal/less

This also means that experimental treatment is equal/more, because if common treatment is less, then that would have to mean that experimental treatment is more. So yes, the two are logically equivalent, and its putting it in a different way.

Can someone correct me if I'm wrong?