For anyone who was confused by JY explanation

Stimulus:

Rule premise: The present government will not do (/D) anything that would harm (H) the domestic steel industry: H → /D

Premise: Allowing more steel imports (amsi) would depress domestic steel price & harm domestic steel manufacturers: Hamsi

Conclusion: it will not lift restrictions on steel import: /Damsi

Lawgic

H → /D

H(amsi)

_

/D(amsi)

AC E

Rule Premise: The astronomy department will not support (/S) any proposal that would render its telescope useless (U): U→ /S

Premise: The installation of bright floodlights on campus E3 would render the astronomy department's telescope useless: U(bf)

Conclusion: it will therefore, not support proposals to install bright floodlights on campus: /S(bf)

Lawgic

U → /S

U(bf)

––––––––––––––

/S(bf)

#feedback: Please re-do this explanation, it made no sense to me

#feedback: Please diagram the conditional logic in the explanation. The majority of the explanation failed to mention how to diagram a conditional statement, which leaves us to make assumption regarding lawgic employed by you

#help: I have an issue with the explanation of Question 17. according to my understanding, Para 3 states why the Pan-Indian theory will not be applicable in this scenario because there is no evidence for its assumption. That does not mean that there is an issue with the Theory itself, so why Para 3 main purpose would be to criticize the theory

For anyone who is still confused about Question 13 AC D, the comment below by For anyone still confused about Question 13 AC D, the comment below by JuandaSheep-1 is very helpful:

"Why “contain” is the bigger problem:

Let’s concede away that Payne was indeed the first scientist to demonstrate that the sun contains both H and He. Let’s say the article straight up tells us that. D is still wrong because the scientific community wouldn’t have an issue with the claim that the sun contains H and He. The mere fact that the sun has them is not incompatible with the “iron” hypothesis. What the scientific community was resisting is that H and He are the main components of the sun. This is why B is the better answer choice."

#help: I struggled with AC B because it had an absolute comparative claim. When is it okay not to overthink the answer choice if it has a comparative claim?

#feedback: please upload a lesson in the foundation syllabus on necessary cause and sufficient cause. It is confusing, and I am forced to make my own assumptions for the question where such causal language is used.

#feedback: How do we know that the correct answer choice must be false and cannot simply be irrelevant to the stimulus?

#help I don't understand how sufficient and necessary conditions were mapped by relying on the term 'by virtue' in Lucy's argument

#feedback: please show me how AC B is mapped. Also, how do we know 'not the only' implies negating necessary

#feedback: It's a horrible explanation. I don't know how he mapped this argument. Please re-do this explanation

#feedback: JY, please redo this video and address the second half of the AC A since, instead of referring to the book, it refers to the author's competence on scientific substance

#feedback: what about 'differ from mine on at least 1 issue' M does not disagree on any issue, so shouldn't it be unacceptable for Kay to vote for M as well

#feedback: this explanation failed to explain to me how JY mapped most relationship for the conclusion - when it is just a probabilistic claim. Moreover, what does 'necessary cause' even mean? Where was this necessary cause concept introduced

#feedback: This is one of the worst explanations I have seen on this platform. It is a difficulty level 4 question. At least put slightly more effort into making the video explaining AC B. The explanation completely glosses over why it is the right AC.

#feedback #help: explanation failed to explain in detail how you mapped the second clause of AC E into /Upset -> /Label

(we are still learning conditional logic; at least, I expect the explanation to explain how a complex conditional statement like AC E is mapped)

#feedback: I didn't like the explanation. It failed to explain the biconditional and properly map the argument. I needed clarification on why the clause after 'unless' was to be excluded and how you know it needs to be excluded. I also didn't understand why AC C is wrong because it mentions a causal relationship, but AC E is correct even though it also mentions a causal relationship.

#feedback: I used conditional logic, and AC B seemed like a trap because it mixed sufficiency with necessity. JY can you please show how AC B is correct using conditional logic

#help can someone tell me what the correct negation of AC B

#feedback voice in the video is distorted, kindly fix the error

I think JY is wrong in stating that we can draw some relationship between non-eccentric and good communicators. Please correct me if I am wrong because my understanding from logic lessons is that you can only draw some relationship between 'double most statements' or 'most and all statements'. A relationship of some cannot be drawn between some and all statement

#feedback: what happened to group 4 negation (cannot)

#feedback: Please redo the explanation. I failed to understand how you mapped the stimulus and why C is right

#feedback: please redo the explanation of Question 13. Paragraph 3 mentions two ways of interpretation & in the end, mentions Bettelheim's interpretation in general. How do we know which interpretation the author is talking about in Question No. 13?

#feedback: please explain why you mapped 'Debate –> Purpose of Art'