So if I understand correctly, there is a suf/nec flaw AND a causal flaw, but the correct ac only talks about the causal flaw?

@hannahhuynh ahh gotcha, but you're using an ipad to take the notes right?

fuming rn

What type of reasoning is at play here?

The explanation for AC C makes no sense to me. This is how I interpret it: To negate “not many x have been transferred to y” would be to remove the not, so it would be “many x have been transferred to y”, but since “many” is logically soft, we treat it like a some relationship. SO, SOME films from the earliest years of Hollywood have already been transferred to acetate.

Why does JY's explanation say that "it’s good that there (C) guarantees a “most” intersection." huh??

#help #helpme #welp

Sooo... is the reasoning here cost-benefit? I approached it that way...but didn't clock the prescriptive/descriptive gap it seems

When JY says I'm surprised the test writers didn't add: "disposal of tanning waste produced with biological catalysts costs roughly the same per pound as disposal of waste produced with the conventional process. That answer would be sufficient (strong) but not necessary."

I don't get how I'm supposed to catch that. Because if we negate the statement, (/roughly the same per pound) meaning it costs slightly MORE per pound of bio vs. pound of chem, wouldn't that be DETRIMENTAL to the argument? Because then we cannot say that bio is cheaper.

#help

@hannahhuynh are these your notes? how are you taking them digitally? is this like an ipad. Looks helpful

@Kevin Lin No! From that, we could only prove that if /B, then /A. OHHH so A is not reachable for that reason?

#help #help #help

Can someone explain how we are supposed to know this is a bi-conditional EVEN after mapping out:

ER --> eligible

/ER --> /eligible

I don't think I'd be able to recognize that this is a bi-conditional

"Now consider two conclusions: access is justified versus access if not justified. Which conclusion is reachable via the first rule? Access is not justified. That is a reachable conclusion. To reach it, we just need to trigger the rule contrapositively."

Can someone explain why the justified conclusion is not reachable if it's the suff condition? 

bruh I am actually the 1% that choose D. brutal lmao

@ActuallyJozu thank you so much for your response!! I WISH U ALL THE BEST TOO! YOU GOT THIS

If i got 3/5 on this, should I keep doing drills or better to move on and come back to these question types later?

#help

Can someone pls explain this to me : "Some parrots that can learn to speak a few words and phrases show tremendous affection for an owner who raised the bird from a chick."

HOW is this a valid inference that can be drawn? it doesn't follow the "most before all" rule

@ja4718b761 Right, i'm also confused about this cause isn't or mean "one of the other, or both"???

@Aliza GGG yes agreed, it sucks

Wearing headphones sound is spotty and cuts out in weird places idk why

Rule: No restrictions should be placed on the sale of merchandise. Why aren't we following group 4 (neg, and make nec) here: Rule: sale-merch → /restrict

Guys why is "To be a Jedi, one must be a Force user." a conditional statement, when there isn't a conditional indicator. I get it is conditional, but their teaching us to rely on the indicator to know which group it is.