Second one was much better, but I slightly disagree. Unless as a society we want to have less people going to university (which is something around 80-90% currently I think), it is too idealistic to believe that the students are looking to "discover their values and expand their mind". Many people go to have fun, meet friends, create a social circle and just appear marketable as the third perspective explained. However, there are students who are going to college for career specific study, and there are some that are there to expand their "breadth" and are there for knowledge's sake. Therefore I think a university's job is to provide an environment for at least these three archetypes of students to get what they are looking for.

Maybe think of it like this: if modern scientists believe that a cup of alcohol every night is healthy, and some scientists believe the opposite, then part of modern day scientific thought is inherently contradictory, and that is ok. When you examine a field of study, you are examining the humans belief about the study, which can be contradictory.

im confused on how a third civilization not having contact with the swahili buildings means they had no influence? you say the oromo could influence the swahili and the swahili could influence the oromo? i just dont understand.

I think the negation of uncomfortable is "not uncomfortable", not "comfortable".

#feedback

could you add speed modifiers for each video? I usually watch in 1.4 x speed but I wanted to slow it down for this one, and this video (and many others) dont allow me to change speeds.

i dont think using the lawgic thing is helpful for correlations or informal logic, and i dont think it fits neatly into an equation. The best i could come up with is

A -/-> B where the arrow=cause (A does not cause B). in lawgic the arrow meant "is sufficient for" so you kind of have to change some of the tools around.

Yes that is invalid. Here is another example:

Most of my friends have blue eyes. Most people who are not my friends dont have blue eyes, therefore if someone has blue eyes they are likely my friend.

Its hard for me to explain why that is incorrect but I think we call all see how its an absurd claim to say that since someone has blue eyes (which is like hundreds of millions of people) they are likely my friend.

for the first claim, you can grant that most people who are studying for the LSAT are stressed. you can also infer that some people who are studying for the lsat are stressed.

for the second claim, you can only infer that some people who are studying for the LSAT are abstaining from alcohol.

also remember the some statement is biconditional which open up one most statement (just flip the sets are around).

wouldnt a most claim also imply a some claim?

Most dogs are pets

This implies:

Some dogs are pets, which is reversable to some pets are dogs

In everyday use, when someone says some, you would think they do not mean all. But when you think about it, when someone use the word some, it doesnt mean they are using the entire population of people.

Example: Some teachers are nice. If there are 10 teachers and they are all nice, you could pick 3 of them (which we can all agree is some) and they would all be nice. Therefore some teachers are nice.

I think for number 1, that "where hunting is permitted" is modify the word counties. I think the sentence is really saying "In surrounding counties, the deer population has not increased in 8 years." Surrounding counties would be the sufficient condition to know that, in that area, the deer population has not increased. Also if the deer population has increased in the last 8 years, it is impossible that it was in a surrounding county.

I will answer 2 -

Every time a NASA program pushes the frontiers of humanity, our collective confidence swells.

The form of this sentence is saying "Every time x happens, y happens"

Therefore we know that if x happened, that is sufficient evidence to know that y happened and if y did not happen we know x did not happen either

Yeah for 4 it doesnt even looked like anything is being compared, just a statement saying "to do this thing, we need more advanced technology than we currently have." I am not sure what is being compared here and what it is being compared on.

I think why it is a hard question of the unwritten now vs then comparison. For example: "I think faster than I used to" translates loosely to "I think faster now than before". The comparison is "think now" vs "think before" and the "winner" of the "faster" comparison is think now. Same with the sentence: My household maintains lower temps NOW than they had been accustomed to BEFORE.

If you are talking about the argument lessons, he never said to not make assumptions, just that you need to notice them. For example: All racoons are weaker and smaller than a all bears, therefore a bear will always win in a fight. The assumption is animals that are weaker and smaller will always lose in a fight. Assuming that premise is not "wrong".

I disagree. the writer is making the point that asking the police to investigate shows he is not guilty, not that he is not guilty. For example, if another premise was added saying "3 witnesses have claimed he was with them at the time of the crime" it would assist a "he is not guilty" conclusion, but not "because of x he did not do y".

I would join. I scored 153 on my first diagnostic and am having trouble on the reading sections

Question 3 was not a complex argument

You are right that the argument could make both of those sentences the conclusion, but the use of the word therefore shows that the writer intends that to be the conclusion. Also I think the argument that "Gerald cant see X. Being Y means you cant see X, which means that Gerald is Y" makes sense.