#feedback

Is it wrong to rule out answers on SA questions that try to bring you an alternative explanation to the argument? I feel like B did that. Why is flattery generally ineffective? Because Merit is the guideline. We should only be focused on proving the argument the author made.

Doesn't E get sufficiency/necessity confused?

IF choosing for oneself the ppl you hangout with makes life ENJOYABLE --> then you may choose who you are free to hangout with.

Doesn't our chain say IF free to choose -->enjoy? I eliminated E this way.

For group 3 negate sufficient, in exercise two this was brought up in the sentence "Amidala cannot deliver her speech unless the attempt to assassinate her fails"

Now JY used the first clause of the sentence as the negate sufficient, but he did not negate it because he said it was already negated by the "cannot" statement.

So when we see a negated condition already present in a sentence that utilizes a group 3 indicator, do we not have to negate anything then? We just move the already negated clause to the sufficient and go on solving whatever the problem asks?

Thank you.

what is a declarative statement? Did we cover this?

and

Are rhetorical questions always premises?

why are we to assume anything about questions 5? I thought no matter the real world implications/our preconceived beliefs on something/the trueness of a statement should not matter. So I took number 5 on its face for A vs B. Meaning I put "rights of future generations to have their artistic heritage preserved VS the rights of any presently living individual (all rights). Someone please tell me why I am wrong.

Couldn't we translate "All residents of The Beresford are prohibited from keeping pets in their apartments unless the animal serves a legitimate medical purpose" into

Resident-->(Prohibited or Serves Medical purpose)

AND then translate that into

Resident and /prohibited--> Animal serves medical purpose. Can we do that?

To attack the support of your friend's claim that (conclusion) Avatar is the most touching movie ever because (premise) it's got that sad scene where the ship just sank and Kate Winslet is barely floating on that little piece of wood and Leo lets her stay on while he freezes to death

you would want to argue something like (ignore if what i say was not in the movie) neither Kate or Jack were crying, or that jack actually got into a lifeboat after kate thought he died, or a rescue ship went and picked up jack and kate right after he passed out from freezing.

Right? we would want to Find ACs that do that instead of ones that say: that scene was not in avatar.

are we supposed to treat "some" or any of the other quantifiers as a condition statement indicator? I messed up this question because i was thrown off by the "because the spring cleanup took place at the same time as the downtown arts fair" part of the question and i totally missed the some relationship. Thanks