Actually "but" logically functions the same way as "and". They are both logical conjunctions, which means they are language conjoiners. Example: To say

you are a cat but I am not

is equivalent to saying:

you are a cat and I am not

-Other words that function like "and"/"but": although, however, nevertheless, yet

-These are examples of logical conjunctions and they have the same truth tables in symbolic logic.

I'm curious about the example you have in mind where "but" means "some" because generally those two are not logically equivalent. "Some" is a logical quantifier, which denotes the existence of something. Example:

Some things are cats but some things are not cats

You've probably checked this out already, but it doesn't hurt to review this once more since we are learning tons of information. This link gives you a condensed lecture of the bridging concept https://classic.7sage.com/approach-necessary-assumption-questions/

On the one hand, if you feel that the argument is not convincing... that is, if you notice that the conclusion introduces a new element that is obviously un-connected from the premises, then that's a fairly big hint you are looking for a bridging answer.

On the other hand, you have to read carefully... because if you feel that the argument is convincing after reading the NA-type stimulus, then you have made the assumption you need to find and you are losing against the LSAT.

Hi AttJazz08... here's a link to where JY teaches there's two ways to arrive at the correct answer:

1) by directly selecting the correct answer choice, -and-

2) by eliminating the four incorrect choices and being left with the correct one. (this process is just termed as "Process Of Elimination")

https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/two-paths-to-a-correct-answer/

<3

Careful here. Just a heads up that the phrase "have to be made" is not an exclusive function for NA. The question stem you reference is actually a SA where there is a play with the order of words.

To illustrate, the following are SA question stems (with SA common indicator emphasized):

- The argument's conclusion is properly drawn if which one of the following is assumed?

- Which one of the following, if assumed, enables the conclusion of the argument to be properly drawn?

- Which one of the following is an assumption that would allow the conclusion above to be properly drawn?

The question stem you reference:

- In order for the conclusion above to be properly drawn, which one of the following assumptions would have to be made?

In other words, it's asking, which assumption "would have to be made" (=if added to the argument) would make it "properly drawn" (=logically valid). Remember the definition of SA: an assumption that, if added to the argument, would make it logically valid.

In contrast, the definition of NA: assumptions that are necessary but not sufficient to guarantee the result.

NA stems:

- Which one of the following is an assumption necessary for the critic's conclusion to be properly drawn?

- Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument relies

- Which one of the following is an assumption that the argument depends on?

Let me know if this helps clear things up. If not, we can explore further!

Ah this got me.

My line of thought with answer choice A was:

A: It would require further assumption for this to be able to Resolve/Explain... The industry as a whole experienced depressed sales? Why?

(JY said maybe the the government issued a warning about the health effects of soda... but exactly, that's a probable further assumption we have to take into account). I was thinking that this answer choice exacerbates the puzzling issue instead of shedding light to resolve the puzzle.

It seems to be a very enticing space for law exploration.

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/young_lawyers/publications/tyl/topics/space-law/