I really appreciate 7Sage taking the time to expand on Knowledge with regards to MSS questions, but I can't help but deeply hate the way the LSAT takes Knowledge to imply both fact and belief. In the example given here, we just have to buy in to Norbert's foolish superstition? Because the stimulus says he knows the Firebirds will lose, we (the test taker) have to become just as stupid as he is in order to get the question right? In the future when we are all (hopefully) practicing lawyers, are we supposed to just shrug and accept that when someone "knows" something they both believe that thing and that thing is fact? No room for a rational, healthy sense of doubt? Though this is section is surely helpful for our test performance, I fail to see how this aspect of the LSAT tests our ability to be good lawyers.

EDIT: I'm also happy the 7Sage authors noted "Here's the logic (it might enrage you)". It absolutely did!

I'm very interested in these Gorb characters. I'll wait for the 7Sage extended universe.

@BrianShellenberger I ran into the same issue. I believe the instructor wrote "SC -> I" because that is the form of the conditional premise. Writing "/I -> /SC" would mean that the conditional premise (first sentence) would be:

"To not possess an immutable trait, plaintiffs must not qualify as a suspect class."