I agree. Here's my take: The question asks us to find a rule/principle ( P → C ). By choosing "(A): it is strongly in our interest to preserve certain plants and animal species", we just chose another premise instead of a rule. #feedback

Mine is working now. Thank you!

JY posted on another discussion post " Apologies! We noticed the issue a several minutes ago and are working on a solution."

Yep mines down :/

Negated: NOT logically identical

Poor vs Not poor

No pilots are blind vs some pilots are blind

This vs Not this

Contrapositive: Logically identical statements

When a dog is happy, it wags its tail vs. When a dog doesn't wag its tail, it is not happy

We use negated statements to form contrapositives.

Drawing from 1.4,

Only if knights wield enchanted swords can they slay dragons (only if =ness. indicator)

subset → superset

suffic → ness. condition

Slay dragons→ enchanted sword

To slay dragons, it is necessary to have an enchanted sword.

If knight wield enchanted swords, they can slay dragons (if= sufficient indicator)

subset → superset

suff. → ness. condition

enchanted sword → slay dragons

To slay dragons, its sufficient enough to have an enchanted sword,

but a cross bow could work too.

I'm still learning but this helped me