Honestly Lawgic helps when you're stuck, but sometimes you can just be intuitive too. Like for question 5, I have a hard time seeing how by merely reading that sentence you couldn't deduce that the emperor doesn't like the taste.

Yea Mr. White! Yea Science!

To understand the Kumar question just think back to labelling the question in terms of X and Y. We know it's a formal conditional argument, meaning it is in the form of X-->Y in Lawgical terms. Think back to the Cat-->Mammal example. Every cat (sufficient) is a mammal (necessary), but not every mammal is a cat. Same thing for Kumar. It goes Citation --> 5minLate. Every citation is because you were five minutes late. But not every time you are 5 or more minutes late do you get a citation.

Certainly though the fact that the "only" made all the difference in the world for answering that question makes it scary. I guess just rely on the indicators heavily.

y'all complaining about the star wars reference are only exposing yourselves for being uncultured. watch them!!!

The Disney argument follows like a logic game and is thus almost impenetrable. It gives a set of rules and based on that makes a conclusion about a specific example. Like you said, it is a "Must be true" situation. I assume these are the strongest arguments out there, where the support is uncontested.

The Tiger argument is strong because the claim "not every mammal" encompasses Tigers too, and simply dismissing the possibility of one mammal supports the conclusion that "not every mammal is a good pet".

The Fat Cat argument is the weakest because it relies on assumptions about evidence to make a conclusion. The facts at hand do not point directly to the Cat being the culprit, but the possibility to make an inference is there.

My question is this however: If the tiger question were worded completely differently, would it be the weakest argument? For example, if it were: Every mammal is a good pet, cats and dogs have been domesticated and for this reason are very friendly with humans. would it be last? I understand this is a very weak argument, but does the fact that it does not use causation logic still put it above the Fat Cat argument? I believe it would be last. Correct me if I am wrong.

My problem still with question 3 is this: doesn't the fact that Linguists have conducted studies from different eras and regions give any sort of support to the claim that "human communication is a universal phenomenon..."? Although I get why it would be a very weak argument, does not the slight relevance of "different eras and regions" in the premise contribute to the conclusive nature of human language as a "universal phenomenon".

Why does the fact that there is something to study from different eras and regions in terms of linguistics not at all give any support to the conclusion?