This is actually a great method for assigning symbols when translating. When I translate into Lawgic one of my biggest obstacles is figuring out which symbols to assign to which. But with this method is actually made easier because I just assign the symbols based on the subject of the sentence and the object.

Like in the example: The kingdoms in Westeros whose economies rely predominantly on trade support foreign policies that aim to secure peace.

The kernel of the sentence is simply "Kingdoms support policies". Everything else is just modifiers.

So when looking at it like this I just assign the symbols as "K" for kingdoms and "P" for policies.

So the translation to Lawgic looks like this: K → P

Well that was a spike in difficulty lol

Most classically trained opera singers can recite the lyrics to Musetta's Waltz and most people who have not received such training cannot. It seems likely, therefore, that Anna, who can recite the lyrics to Musetta's Waltz, was classically trained.

CTOS = classically trained opera singers

RLMW = can recite the lyrics to Musseta's Waltz

/CTOS = Most people who have not received such training ("such training" is a referential for "classically trained opera singers")

/RLMW = cannot (another referential. This time it refers to "recite the lyrics to Musseta's Waltz", negating it.)

A= Anna

So the Lawgic translation is:

CTOS ‑m→ RLMW

/CTOS ‑m→ /RLMW

A RLMW

---------------------

A CTOS

This is invalid because it's reading the ‑m→ arrow backwards as RLMW ‑m→ CTOS when it is the other way around.

For the conclusion to be valid it would've had to read "It seems likely, therefore, that Anna, who was classically trained, can recite the lyrics to Musetta's Waltz."

Disney's argument is the strongest because it leaves absolutely no doubt that its conclusion is true. It tells us that Walt has the pass, and there are only 2 ways of getting the pass, A and B. it tells us that Walt has never done B, so therefore he must have done A.

Tigers argument is strong but not as strong as the Disney one because it doesn't go into as many details, leaving open possibilities. For example, what if you raise a tiger cub, and from its infancy that tiger grows up loving you and respecting you. Could it not be possible that THAT specific tiger may not be aggressive? If so, then you could make an argument that tigers could be a suitable pet.

Trash bin argument is the weakest because in its conclusion the detective uses very specific wording that is not necessarily supported by its premises. The detective concludes that Mr. Fat Cat INTENTIONALLY knocked over the bin, however, the premises does not strongly support this claim because, while it is entirely possible that Mr. Fat Cat did in fact knocked over the bin, it is also possible that he did so on accident and not on purpose.

Question for #5:

I drew the conclusion "kittens ‑m→ /homes with children"

However I made the mistake of also drawing the conclusion "kittens ←s→ home with children"

I did this because I interpreted the quantifier as "few" and I understood that "few" means "some but not many" which when translated turns into both "some are" and "most are not".

But I didn't take into consideration that it was saying "fewer than half" instead of "few".

So therefore, I'm I to understand that "few" and "fewer than half" are not the same thing?

With "few" being both "A ←s→ B" and "A ‑m→ /B"

and

"fewer than half" being exclusive to "A ‑m→ /B"?

I'll appreciate if someone can clarify that. Thanks.