If anything, D seemed more like a sub-conclusion to me!
I know I’m not the only one! This feels like a table stakes feature that’s missing. Competitor apps default to dark mode and it’s so much easier on the eyes. I know it’s currently an experimental feature, but I’d love to see this prioritized. There’s no reason for the diagram PNGs to be completely illegible on dark mode.
I'm having this same issue. I find the app really really slow. Sometimes I'll open the app and it'll just be a white screen, no content. I usually have to close the app in order to use it. Maybe we should repost this on the Feature Request channel!
A turning point in the transition to democracy came when privileged people in society who had been part of its support base realized that the authoritarian regime is dispensable. ---->
A turning point came when people realized that the regime is dispensable.
Even breaking the sentence down to its kernel, I'm still missing how its refers to the regime instead of society or the democratic turning point :(
All As and Bs are Ls.
Most well-stocked Ls showcase a wide range of Xs.
But if an L is disorganized it is not well-stocked.
Why does being disorganized make an L not well-stocked? None of the premises answer this. None of the premises support this fake conclusion! There is no argument here
“Premise”: Not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet. “Conclusion”: Tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people.
This argument is missing a premise that supports the conclusion. If there was a premise stating “tigers are mammals that have been kept as pets, but it’s ended in disaster every time because the tigers kept violently killing their owners” —> well then that does segue into a main point conclusion where we can see that tigers are aggressive and cause harm to people. Without that connecting premise though, the argument is flawed when presented in that direction.
Does that make sense to yall? It’s how I interpreted this example and hopefully it helped someone else
silly question with the over sharing example — is it possible to reframe it as a conditional logic statement?
wasn’t in school -> I peed my pants (conditional)
I didn’t pee my pants -> I was in school (contrapositive)
It’s not a Lawgic moment, because the sentence isn’t really arguing for anything or making a conclusive statement, but doesn’t the same structure apply?