Here's my attempt at explaining:

All of A are B: all humans are mammals (A --> B)

Some B are C: some mammals have tails (B <s> C)

Therefore, some humans have tails (A <s> C)

We cannot conclude that some humans have tails just because all humans are mammals. I tried to use an example that was obvious, I hope this helps!

3/3 and I even got the diagramming right! I took a lot of time but I was confident in my answers. Now we have to work on timing.

How do we know when the valid conclusion is a some or most statement?

The explanation for question 4 was great. I was incredibly confused why "most" didn't include the pilots if all of them have to preform the maneuver. But logically, I now see how that's not a conclusion we can draw

I enjoyed this activity as it was helpful but the question answers are a bit confusing compared to the video explanation.

2/3! Even though I got one wrong, I totally understand where I messed up. The video explanations are unmatched!

Its a bit frustrating to read that in question #3 "THE only" creates a sufficient condition but that was not at all mentioned during that lesson.

So do we or do we not ignore when a conditional uses "no/not/cannot/both"? Because I was under the impression that we should ignore them but I'm not too sure.

This lesson made all the other indicator lessons make sense. Soooo glad I finally got it.

If the idea is already "negative" (i.e. without a policy, not be successful) does that not matter and we must negate it anyway? I was under the impression that if it was already negative, negating it would make it a positive statement.

Does that question make sense?

Wow! Sufficiency vs Necessity finally clicked with this lesson. The late Kumar example really took it home. It's still a bit touch and go but something definitely clicked!

I was naturally doing this so its nice to see that its a useful skill.

This was a great way to bring everything in the module together. I found that I was able to quickly answer the question with more ease than before I started this lesson. I'm so excited to keep going

4/5, got tripped up on identifying the conclusion vs the premise in question 4 using the "why should I believe this" method. Be careful not to psych yourself out!

The "you're not normal, you're a lawyer in training" truly changed my brain chemistry.