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)

#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

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

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