Why not in video form?

is anyone else taking longer times to answer. I decided to take my time in understanding grammar which makes me reread but i thought its ok to take my time for now and let speed come with practice. Any thoughts on if thats a bad strategy or not?

idky yall dont make videos showing clearly this flaw

im confused on the quantifiers. If we say all A's are B's, and we equate themselves logically, can they be interchangeable? A B and All B's are C's (or A = B), we cans say A B/C (because theyre interchangeable .

Why cant it work with some? All A's are B's (or A = B) and B C, therefore A/B C.

Is it all just contextual basing it on what sets youre talking about?

its intersting when you use the all quantifier because if you say All b's are c's, youre equating the two. if some of a's are b's and all c's are b's, you can just combine the two some a's are c's because you meshed together b and c as two equal things.

holyyy i did all the tanslating into logic pretty well and even did the contapositive but it was so had for me to put it back into the lsat

the domain rule really helps!

is the rule still valid if the conjunction or disjunction were swapped in the conditional argument? In the example, the conjunction is in the necessary. Would the law be applied differently if it were in the sufficient

Is this the thinking behind the confusing necessary for sufficient?

Pluto is a dog only if he is a mammal, Pluto is a mammal, therefore he is a dog.

Here its much clearer to see the confusion of mixing up the two. Just because pluto is a mammal doesnt mean he is a dog. The only thing it tells us is for him to be a dog, it is necessary for him to be a mammal. But just because he is a mammal, it doesnt mean that we are guaranteed he is a dog.

In logic the invalid principle is called affirming the consequent.