#help Knowing the quantifier inferences (all implies most implies some) and the pattern of valid/invalid arguments, would it be correct to say that the smaller set should always come first in a valid argument?

e.g., -

A —m→ B → C Valid, ‑m→ refers to a smaller set than →

A → B —m→ C Invalid, → refers to a larger set than ‑m→

or

A ←s→ B → C Valid, ←s→ refers to a smaller set than →

A → B ←s→ C Invalid, → refers to a larger set than ←s→

#help - I asked this on a previous lesson, but if true, I think it seriously simplifies thinking of these flaws:

Knowing the quantifier inferences (all implies most implies some) and the pattern of valid/invalid arguments, would it be correct to say that the smaller set should always come first in a valid argument?

e.g., -

A —m→ B → C Valid, ‑m→ refers to a smaller set than →

A → B —m→ C Invalid, → refers to a larger set than ‑m→

or

A ←s→ B → C Valid, ←s→ refers to a smaller set than →

A → B ←s→ C Invalid, → refers to a larger set than ←s→

#help Because the other councilors' position is a comparative claim - that the courthouse would be better than the shoe factory - couldn't their evidence be considered both evidence for the courthouse and evidence against the shoe factory? In which case wouldn't A also work?

theodora must have been geeked af

So true

How would you process an answer choice like E on test day? Assuming you've already eliminated A, B, and C would you just go into hunt mode and try to see whether D doesn't explain the discrepancy rather than seeing if E does?

How are we supposed to know that early computer keyboards didn't also jam? Does that not require bringing outside knowledge into the exam?