@SusanLeifker Well I only got 2/5 right so I can't be doing that well 😭

@CaseySteffen I was confused about this too, but I think you can, he just uses cause effect to more quickly go through the answer choices. E.g. for C), if you look at the passage as solely conditional logic, you may try mapping out C) as if-then, but if you see the passage as cause-effect, then C) is obviously incorrect since there's no causal relationship in the first sentence. This is just a guess though since I had the same question.

This has gotta be one of the layers of hell.

For Q5, I translated 21 or older as 21+, but then I thought "in the US" is another condition, so my Lawgic formula was:

21+ and in-the-US --> can-purchase-alcohol

or /can-purchase-alcohol --> /21+ or /in-the-US

Is this incorrect because I'm drawing outside inferences, or why wouldn't being in the US also be a required condition to purchase alcohol? If you're not in the US but still 21+, you still might not be able to purchase alcohol, no?

I realise now that it's because the question assumes 21+ --> (legally allowed to purchase alcohol in the US), where in the US, it is part of the necessary condition of being legal, not something separable from being legally allowed.