does the wording "being intelligent does not imply that one is wise" meaning that if one is intellegint, one cannot be wise?"

I got

Decrease cost --> More CLD + congestion decrease --> Profits increase

and I still got the correct answer. Is this another way to map this out correctly?

up until now i've treated embeddedd conditionals as one entity

so , A --> C in place of A --> (B --> C). It's worked for me.

Why is it important to break it down even more?

framework 1 seems to be the same as framework 3

Translating this into lawgic, I got:

/T --> /PD and Rev --> H --> T

contra

/T --> /H --> /Rev or PD --> T

Using this, I got the correct answer. But there's no way this logic is correct. What did I do wrong to get to this spot?

Oh, the sentences are short, they might be easy!

...

*sees a 38 min explainer video

Question 3

We have (2) indicators. A group 4 indicator ("No one") and a group 3 indicator ("Unless").

Why are we ignoring "no one"? Shoulden't we negate the necessary condition?

For example

No one can [venture into Mordor] unless [they are brave]

(1) If I follow the rule for group 4 indicators, then I have V --> /B or /V --> B

Then, using the rule for group 3 indicators, I will get /V --> /B or B --> V or V --> B or /B --> /V

How am I supposed to know which indicators to follow when analyzing a conditional with more than one group of indicators?

@Kevin_Lin

I mapped mine out like this

(A) ABS --> (B) Common --> (C) Advantages

A --> B --> C

Contrapositive /C --> /B --> /A

Why is that wrong?