Effective peer responses will include one or more of the following:

Suggestions or strategies for your peers to try, relating to the topics they identified as being difficult.

Clarification or extension of a peer's post, beyond simple agreement (i.e., "Yes, I agree" is not an effective response)

Examples of sentences/translations that may help explain the use or purpose of truth tables

Moving from truth tables about single statements to truth tables about full arguments super confusing I went and found some other videos to watch, and I hope they were right. When using single statements, it was easier because I only had to solve for one operator, like and or if then or (or}. With arguments there are more columns and steps, and I had to keep track of both the premises and the conclusion. The hardest part for me was remembering the rule for conditionals. In logic, if then statement is only false if the first part is true and the second part is false. At first, I wanted to say that if both parts were false, the whole statement should be false too. But in truth tables, false is false is considered true. I get it if its false its false then it's true that its false. I seemed backwards at first, but once I practiced and saw it I got used to it. A new part was testing arguments for validity by checking whether there was any row where all the premises were true and the conclusion was false.