This makes sense, thank you!

Agreed, I feel like I've been relying too heavily on intuition lol

That's what I had first.... or the domain as "in said forest"

The thing is, I think forest is more attached to the idea of pandas, than poachers. Either way, unless the general conditional relationship is understood, I think we're in the clear

Only = introduces necessary condition, right side of lawgic equation

THE only = group 1, introduces sufficient condition, left side of equation

So the contrapositive would be: if it wasn't written down, it's not a surviving oral myth.

Hi there, let me try and help. Anyone, please jump in if I am misunderstanding in any way. Though, before I answer, I want to note that for conditional arguments like your example, using superset/subset/membership language might unnecessarily complicate things... just jumping straight into the lawgic might clear things up for you.

"If it's sunny" (S) is the sufficient condition, as indicated by the key word "if", making it the subset. Going to the park (P) is the superset as it is the necessary condition. In lawgic:

S --- > P

The other valid inference you can make from your example is the contrapositive:

/P -- > /S, or if I am not at the park then it is not sunny.

In the first version of your example, if it is sunny, you are guaranteed to be going to the park. Whether or not you go to other places while it is sunny is irrelevant; your example guarantees that you will go to the park if it is sunny. In other words, going to the park is necessary if it is sunny outside.

From this version of your example we cannot validly conclude that if you are at the park, it is sunny. You could be at the park in all different types of whether. The example is silent on any other reasons you might be at the park. The only thing that we can conclude is that when it is sunny, you'll for sure be at the park and if it's not sunny, you won't be at the park.

--

If we change the language to "only if", the roles reverse. 'Only if it is sunny' becomes the necessary condition, or the superset, and going to the park becomes your sufficient condition, or subset. If you are at the park, then we can guarantee that it is sunny outside.

P --- > S

Contrapositive:

/S ---> /P, or if it is not sunny, then I won't go to the park.

If we add a factual premise here: I am at the park on Monday, we can validly conclude that it is sunny on Monday. We cannot conclude, like in the first version of your example, that since Monday is sunny, you'll be at the park. In this "only if" version, the weather being sunny on Monday does not automatically mean you will be at the park on Monday. It only asserts that if you are at the park on Monday, then it is 100% sunny that day.

I realize now that I am not the best teacher but I'm hoping I helped just a little bit.

Ugh finally. After so many different explanations of sufficiency and necessity in different courses, videos, and books, I think I made a breakthrough!!

Thinking about membership as a subset of a superset really makes it clear. If someone is hungry, then they are angry. Therefore, since I am hungry, I am also unhappy. My friend is unhappy, but that doesn't make them hungry. However, since my other pal is not unhappy, they cannot possibly be hungry.

(this is just an example, don't have that many friends. I am hungry tho)

Agree with you. Non very cold days is less of a stretch than assuming the author meant "now"

#feedback

#feedback

Could we get a pdf version of the Miro board so that we could print it?

Thank you :)

In the last question, is "one" a referential?

Excited for this section - I noticed that as soon as I see a 3+ line sentence, my brain automatically jumps to the next one as if to say, "you won't understand it so don't even try"... lol

premises are support for the conclusions made. contexts are background information that doesn't directly support the conclusion, but provides readers with an understanding for why the author cares to make the argument

This exercise didn't test on sub-conclusions and sub-premises from the previous lesson. Is this a glitch?

Wouldn't there be an assumption around timing of said prostration? Isn't it technically valid to consider that Walt would prostrate himself later on?

Premise 2 - indicates 'must have', which is in the past tense but Premise 3 just reads 'must,' indicating that it is possible that Walt could not have prostrated himself (yet) but plans to and that airtight promise is enough for Mickey to give him Genie+ because he is a trustworthy person? #feedback

i think a good way to think about it is that you are not asked to draw in outside knowledge, but analyze what possibilities are left on the table by the author. what could happen since it's not explicitly identified in the stimulus.. using the original example - don't know the cat's size as its not explicitly stated, so his size could be anything - from big enough to knock the bin down, or small enough not to. the unknown itself is what weakens the argument

Stronger arguments are more explicit, and weaker arguments require some type of assumption / implication to be reached by the reader for it to be logically sound