TIL: there are multiple ways to pronounce the word "culinary"

at 8:08 i was confused because unless = negate sufficient, but i see with the double negation we just jumped a step ahead and flipped them. in case anyone got confused on that.

i mapped it correctly but #2 is BREAKING MY BRAIN

Being a cat is sufficient (it satisfies the requirement) of being a mammal.

If you're a cat, it's necessary (it's inevitable) that you are also a mammal.

Try flipping the ideas (taking the contrapositive) to see if it still makes sense. If it doesn't, you probably mixed them up.

Does being a cat make you a mammal?

Yes. All cats mammals.

Does being a mammal make you a cat?

No. You could be a cat, however, being a mammal does not necessarily mean you are definitely cat. Cats are just one of many potential mammals you could be.

Say you have an apple. Does that mean you have a fruit?

Yes.

But does having a fruit mean that you definitely have an apple?

No. If you have a fruit, you could have an apple, but having a fruit does not necessarily mean you definitely have an apple. Apples are just one of many potential fruits you could have.

Having an apple is sufficient (it satisfies the requirement) of having a fruit (if you have an apple, it's inevitable that you have a fruit, so fruit is the necessary condition).

However, having a fruit does not satisfy the requirement of having an apple.

Hope that helps. Did you go through the core curriculum segments on this? Learning "lawgic" and how to take the contrapositive of statements like this can be super helpful!

i find this practice exhausting but super helpful. the contrapositives really help clarify whether i got the order correct.

as others have said, the video on group 1 indicators must be edited because i too am only watching the videos, and the list did not include "the only" so question 3 had me very confused.

I chose D, though A was the only one I didn't eliminate.

Something about the phrasing "indicates that" threw me off, making me think the sentence was a statement of fact, which made me think it was a premise. Maybe I misunderstand the definition of "indicate"?

But I guess even if that were the case, the statement "there is a warm sea" and "the presence of such a sea is ... a primary factor" are separate statements nonetheless that together support the overall conclusion. I did not differentiate these separate ideas.