Doing this exercise made me realize the sufficient assumption is very conclusion based whereas the necessary is in general something the argument needs regardless of whether the conclusion holds true or not

r u kidding me

I really like this analogy!

ok but you see... this makes sense

the farther I go, the more I think I don't know how to read

i feel like my brain skipped over B because it was too perfect

got this right by talking to myself but at least i got it right

i felt this in my soul

this one got me good

truly wackadoodle

A got me good

i also thought this too!

same, i was like welp this guy must just be doing his own thing

lol the only reason i didn't pick it was because it said "exceeds 250" and the wording said "at least" so i was like nah, then i heard his logic and was like oh...

real

Interested!

#feedback I liked the explanation of answer choice E by saying that the author wouldn't be satisfied with it because there was no action taken.

I think it means the same thing as failing because A does not meet the sufficient condition with the "/" and that is not a valid conclusion, if you look above what you just typed is the "denying the sufficient condition" lawgic. Just because A is not true does not mean B is not true. There could be another way to achieve B, is how I view it

I think of it as a circle which is "play violin", then there is an overlapping circle that has "are not exceptionally good" because most people who play the violin are not exceptionally good, and then there is a completely seperate circle that does not HAVE to touch the "not exceptionally good" circle that has the NYC philharmonic in it

I think because it's not certain that the revolution will happen, from the way I read it. Just because someone is corrupt then it will lead to revolution, but it doesn't have to. idk though that was my take.

I feel like the sufficiency versus necessity didn't click until the Katherine vs Raj example, because when you think about it, we know they both cannot be on the call. However, if Katherine is NOT on the call, we cannot assume that Raj is because like he mentioned they both just could not on the call. It's starting to click, but this helped me understand a lot more examples! We only know for certain Raj is NOT when Katherine is NOT.

The Disney argument is the strongest because it leaves little to no holes for other assumptions. Everything that is stated needs to be true in order for the conclusion (Walt has a Disney pass, but did not do X he must have done Y). It's extremely hard to pick holes in this argument because of how many/specific the premises are. The tiger argument is second in strength because the conclusion IS supported by the premise that tigers are aggressive and can injure people, but the definition of pet isn't given. Maybe your pet can injure you and still be a great pet, such as when your cat accidentally claws you. Or your dog can get aggressive. The last argument is weak because it relies on a lot of assumptions.

Tiger: Not every roommate is clean, some roommates leave dishes out.

Disney: In order for Ashley to play tennis, she has to pick up her shoes and buy some balls. She went to the store earlier and got some balls. I saw her playing tennis on the way home. Ashley must have picked up her shoes.

Trash Bin: I came home and saw at tree had fallen onto my driveway. I looked over at my neighbor and saw that he had a chainsaw out on his driveway. He also was outside and commented on how he had been working hard. My neighbor must have cut down my tree.