My problem:

I think what confused me here was seeing all the indicator words and wanting to put it into lawgic with rule+exception framework but not fleshing out the rule into lawgic first. I tried to apply the exception but the problem is it was cancelled out by the no in the beginning.

Explanation:

Original Premise: No student is chosen for Gryffindor unless they exhibit bravery.

Premise Translated Lawgic: student chosen for Gryffindor > exhibit bravery

No is cancelled out by unless because you can apply the unless to the sufficient condition so there is no exception to apply here.

The conclusion is also a conditional so I have to clean it up first.

Original Conclusion: Therefore, if a student exhibits bravery, they will be sorted to Gryffindor.

Conclusion Translated Lawgic: exhibit bravery > sorted to Gryffindor

The sentence when translated reads:

Students are sorted/chosen to Gryffindor (A) then exhibit bravery (B)

A -> B

Therefore:

If you exhibit bravery (B) then you are sorted to Gryffindor (A)

B -> A

Is confusing sufficiency for necessity because there are a million ways you could exhibit bravery. Like sticking up to a bully.

The thing that helped me was thinking of the if and then as metrics in which to measure something. One is a measurement of time past 5 minutes. The other is a measurement of being late.

Since the measurement of time past 5 minutes is on the right then you are not measuring for that metric. (17 minutes is irrelevant in the 2nd premise)

Since the measurement of being late is on the left, then you are measuring for that metric.

Nothing was mentioned about whether or not he was late in the 2nd premise, just that he arrived 17 minutes after the bell, so no valid conclusion can be drawn.

Likely Mistake Made: You tried to measure for the 5+ minutes metric but it’s on the right, you only measure for the metric on the left (late or not). You assumed that being late was equivalent to 5+ minutes but they are separate.

Hey I’m a non traditional student and have worked jobs and had a career in the military. This is just a test. You have taken many like it in high school but you can look back and realize that those tests didn’t define you. It might get you more money at a bigger firm but in the grand scheme of things this test is to make sure you can do the job at a bare minimum. If you’re shooting for high scores know that 3% of testers reach over 170 and those people could be bad lawyers still. If you’re struggling to comprehend I would say this test is a problem that can be solved. That means work harder and be more consistent. Studying too much and in your head? Take a break.

Main takeaway: It’s just a test and most of the time it’s only as complicated as you choose to make it.

instantly flew to comment section lmfao