What has made this easier for me is realizing that all is not the same as only. All refers to everything of a certain group. Only is more strict about the rules.

All dogs drink water. Other animals can drink water too.

ONLY dogs drink water. No other animals drink water.

A team who won the NBA finals must have scored more during regular time or scored more in overtime.

Won the NBA Finals--> (Scored more during Regular time OR scored more in Overtime)

Won the NBA Finals--> (/Score more during Regular time--> Scored more in Overtime)

Won the NBA finals-->(/Score more in Overtime--> Scored more in Overtime)

Pulling the embedded sufficient condition would be

Won the NBA Finals AND /Score more during Regular time--> Scored more in Overtime

Won the NBA Finals AND /Score more in Overtime--> Scored more during Regular time

This method makes it easier to identify the options that lead to a conclusion.

Got confused on 6. I assumed that a center that has less than 10% adoption rate may be eligible was part of the Lawgic formula. Is there any tips for avoiding tricks like this?

Validity does not equal to truth. However, if all premises are true then the conclusion must be true. This makes an argument valid. An invalid argument depends on the truth of the premises.

Every conditional argument is valid? Does that also make every conditional argument true?

I'm interested. I plan on taking it in April 2026.

jay is a diabetic and gets low blood pressure. He eats a chocolate bar once a day. Ray leaves a chocolate bar in his bedroom drawer. Ray's Chocolate bar is missing and Jay was the last to leave Ray's Room. Jay did not have his chocolate bar yet. Jay ate Ray's chocolate bar.

4/5 on the first try. 5/5 on blind review. Should have trusted my gut on number 2.