I have to say this may be where you lose me. the phrase "Some students... can read..." uses the plural "Students," which necessitates more than 1 when you use the unambiguous "can."

If you were to switch the phrase to "Some students...May be able to read..." then it signifies a lack of certainty, which allows for the inclusivity of a quantity of 1. I would argue that if the initial premise says "Some students can..." then it must mean that more than one student can read. Otherwise, it one could be inclusive with the less certain modified statement above or with the alternate "At least one student... can read." Plural+definitive is ALWAYS more than one.

So my question is: how do we know when to accept incorrect sentence structure in order to presume the author's meaning vs. when to parse the sentence structure to obtain the author's meaning?

I got so caught up on the idea of who is considered a "resident." IE: Is everyone who lives in NYC technically considered to be a NYC Resident? Most locales require 6 months+ of continues presence to be considered a legal "resident." If peter has lived in the building for 3 months with his poodle, is he a "resident" yet? I guess we can ignore that, but if I were given this question on the test, I'd be wondering if the change of language from "NYC Resident" to "Peter lives there" is a valid reason for me to say that he does not yet have the inalienable right yet.

I would completely understand the premie and the logic (and the Lawgic) still potentially get this question wrong if there was an option to state that it's unknown whether he has the inalienable right (since we aren't given the rules for who is considered to be a "resident").

Anybody else here mostly to get faster? I've taken 2 practice tests and only gotten about 3 wrong answers, as the time was expiring each time. I just can't seem to finish more than about 65% of the test!