This comment would be a lot more useful with an enumeration of those logical errors.
replycommenter’s specific claim—that adding a note about the definition of "if" would solve the problem—is a moving the goalposts fallacy and a tautology. The comment also suffers from hasty generalization (in their experience the test isn't hard) and special pleading (double standard for LLM and humans).
replyWhen someone tells you "you can have this if you pay me", they don't mean "you can also have it if you don't pay". They are implicitly but clearly indicating you gotta pay.
replyIt's as simple as that. In common use, "if x then y" frequently implies "if not x then not y". Pretending that it's some sort of a cognitive defect to interpret it this way is silly.