Sounds like a drunk Kermit the Frog

Thankyou so much sir❤ it's very helpful and nice teaching

Thomas Gary Martin Donald Johnson Linda

Hurley is not correct when he states that "wherefore" is a conclusion indicator. "Wherefore" is not typically used as a conclusion indicator in logical or argumentative structures. In older English, it means "why" and is used to ask about the reason or cause of something.

Great education

No way, I’m going for radiologic technology too! So cool. I also plan on putting as much knowledge as I can under my belt. It’s impressive how much you’ve been able to accomplish. Gives me hope in my own life that I can truly achieve and learn as much as I want with hard work and persistence.

ps clicking is not bugging me!

I'd love to know what new tablet and pen your using. Thank you for posting these , so helpful!!!!!

Thank you for providing this clarification!

Thank you for posting these! They have helped me to understand this chapter in this book. I look forward to following you along as my pilot through Hurley's book. I also love the cheat sheet and was able to make my own. Thank you for taking the time to work on these videos to help us understand this information!

Thank you so much! I appreciate your devotion to learning and teaching. I am currently at ELAC and your videos are very helpful.

Very nice

THanknyou mam

Thank you Sir for these videos, I'll try to understand this chapters through your explanation, because I'm a student in the department of English studies in Morocco , and the Advanced composition professor is teaching us this book, honestly I'm not that good in English 😅 that's why I find it so hard to keep up with him , as much as my classmates do hhhh. So thank you again.

Hey your files for the movies are not opening ?

thanks! it was very usefull to me.clear explanation.keep going

Damn, didn't know professor was chill like that 🤙

Thanks for this video ❤❤❤

I got it just for the time of being. however, some difficult question can't understand easily. so please each question with reasonable justification explained. for instance question number eight is non argument. Why? because some conditional statment is non argument.

6:13 ‐ ambiguity vs vagueness

So M. Luther shifted to a more abstract policy of reason in the edge case of ethical conflicts and it opened the path to rationality subsequently..?

#payyourchildsupportpookie

I think you have blessed my eardrums with this such horrid taste in music, I need to go to a psychiatric ward after this song. I think it drove me insane you sound like Kermit the Frog during sex. Please get a life #Areyouhomosexual?

You should probably pay child support ngl

You have no music taste or talent🫶🏳️‍🌈

Thank you so much, I was struggling so much but after listening to you, I understand it much better. It made me so happy !!!

Very interesting! Thank you for sharing. I'm looking for The Great Conversation book in PDF!

Whyyyyyy is right!!! I can’t with this…painful 😬

Is this Kermit the frog?

Thanks! You're so much better than my philosophy professor!

Aren’t you that “sovereign citizen” lunatic that tried to ban books in California? Saw you got your ass handed back to you yesterday 😂😂😂

Look at the homophobe skate!

It's hilarious that you of all people teach "critical thinking".

Book burner you have no right teaching.

Thank you so much. Too much gatekeeping regarding this class and im not a math guy myself.

I am from Ethiopia tanks teacher

keep going ❤😊

Thanks sir ❤😊

Good explanation Sir. 👌🏻

Thanks for the video, I'd subscribe but I see you already have a good amount... wouldn't want to be the 667th.

I have an exam tomorrow and I’ve spent my night watching all your videos lol and I understand everything now

I have an end of sem exam tomorrow and you’ve really helped me. I now understand everything

thank you!

I don't understand how the third and fourth sentences in the 2nd "Lead is toxic..." question do not support the conclusion that lead is toxic. The definition of toxic is harmful, and these sentences lay out the evidence as to why lead is indeed harmful to human biology. Actually, every sentence but the second seems to lead to the conclusion that lead is toxic. The statement "Lead is toxic mainly because it preferentially replaces other metals in biochemical reactions" does not really explain at all why this would be something that is or could be harmful to anyone or anything. So what if it does replace other metals in biochemical reactions? The next sentences are what seem to be needed to actually conclude that lead is harmful, therefore toxic. What am I not understanding about logic? I'm just about to start an Intro to Logic and Critical Thinking class, so thanks for sharing the vid!

this was super helpful thanks!

Super excited for this class!

god bless u

This is genius.. wish someone would Literally just read the book though so I could just work out while listening to the book instead lol I’m not your student I was looking to see if I could find the book as an audio book and this popped up

Please complete the exercise. especially no.13/

Very nice explanations. thank you