so basically if you were to expand out the necessary condition for Kumar

Late -> +5mins

Kumar (late)

Therefore, Kumar (+5mins)

The structure of conditional reasoning points out that it's valid that Kumar arrived +5 mins late, but we don't know for sure if he will be cited as late?

so basically, your job isn't to decide whether the statements are true or false. Instead, you're focused on analyzing the structure of the argument to determine if it's logically valid.

Premise 1: If one exists as a rabbit, one is also a magician.

Premise 2: Jack is a rabbit.

Conclusion: Therefore, Jack is a magician.

Subset: Rabbits (because premise 1 implies that all rabbits are magicians, but not all magicians are rabbits) > Superset: Magicians > X: Jack is a rabbit.

so basically the more reasonable an assumption = less room for error/criticism The less reasonable an assumption = more room for error/criticism. Reasonability is determined by the strength of the support relative to the argument. Is this right?