Yes! please provide a link for me to join

count me in

I would like to be a part of it

Not a good explanation.

"only" is a necessary condition indicator. must put poetry on the right side of the arrow.

I am interested. Currently studying 7 hours a day.

I am also interested

this wasnt very helpful

you can't have a statement with "all" and then proceed with "some" "most" etc. The way it could work is if it starts with "some" "most" etc and then "all" after.

Example of INVALID: A→B←s→C Therefore A←s→C

Example of VALID: A←s→B→C Therefore A←s→C

as long as you don't confuse sub-conclusion and main conclusion, then you should be fine

In JY's deep dive analysis on AC C, he says we don't know if there is a control group or whatnot. But I've heard him speak in previous lessons that we can't assume experimental defects unless it gives some insight into it. I might have heard him wrong but I am curious tho.

saw the present-past analogy and went hunting

[Deleted]. Went over group 3

The rule says to choose either or. If you choose A, you don't get B. Shouldn't the rule be "A→/B" or "B→/A"? I understand the "oldest trick in the book" but I don't see myself committing it in this. #help

After reading that sentence, I thought that someone could have multiple problems, but then I was overthinking it. Smh

one analogy I thought of was a sports team. Let's say that each individual is "well-skilled" at their position, the team together could still not be well as a whole.

Eliminated B because it said only conclusion smh

same here

I don't understand how the answer isn't C. If you negate it, it completely recks the argument as well. #help