Okay, ignore this comment. It's definitely not the point. But wouldn't the speed limit on a British highway have decreased from 113 km/h to 80 km/h? lol

@new_cheese Oh, don't be sorry. It's not your job to make me understand it differently. I've determined that "Some>=1" is a rule I'll just have to remember. As for "some" being less than one, I wasn't making an assumption about your homework example, I was just expanding on it to show how some could possibly be less than one when using a collective term like "work" that can't always be easily quantified with integers. "I've done some work" towards making a sandwich means that you haven't necessarily finished making the whole sandwich, so it could still be less than one when we're not dealing with integers, even though "some" work has, indeed been done.

Ugh... I hope there aren't a lot of other situations where grammar and LSAT logic disagree. I'd much rather comprehend than remember, but like you said, in this case I'll just have to remember this one rule that "some" can =1. Thanks for your efforts.

@jhlaier I took a very long time with all of them because the prompt/directions for this one was "Take your time... This isn't timed." lol. I guess that's why it wanted me to blind review them all. I got 5/5, but I followed the "take your time" direction too closely, including taking a break twice while doing it. Now I know. It's always timed.

@new_cheese I appreciate you writing all of this, but here's the problem with what you're saying:

First, you said "I think you're right in just translating it to at least one. If it's helpful, with "some" I think of it as a group of something. The group will have more than one member, so it will always be plural, but it's a singular group. So this group of students, some of them read. The them refers to the group of students because when it comes to a group of blank, you can to match the verb to the plural blank depending on the context (subject-verb agreement is wild with this), but you are talking about a singular entity."

But your explanation of subject-verb assignment is slightly wrong. The pronoun-verb pair of "them read" in your example does not refer to "group." It refers to "students." If you wanted to refer to the group, you'd use "it." But it's improper to refer to a group as being able to read since it is an inanimate representation or label for what is contained within it, so we say that the students can.

Let's say I have two groups of birds. The first group of birds is labeled "B" because they are blue. The second group of birds is "R" because they are "red."

The Group IS R or you might even say the second group IS red. But the birds "are" red. This is standardized for American English, though to be fair: if the LSAT were administered in England, you'd be correct that either is acceptable. However, that still would not change what's incorrect about this lesson, overall. And I'll demonstrate using your examples:

In your dating example, you say "We should meet up again sometime!" You use the collective, vague "sometime" to indicate meeting at some unspecified point in the future (different from "some time," btw, which would indicate that you want to meet up over an unspecified period or for an unspecified duration). If you had said "I want to go on some more dates with you," or "I hope we have "some" more dates," you're starting off with the plural, which indicates that you want at least two more dates. Which may come off as kind of thirsty, but hey, it doesn't take all day to recognize sunshine, so do you.

Likewise, you said "I've done some work." You used the collective, ambiguous "some work" because it does not necessarily indicate completion of even a single task.

"Have you started changing your oil yet?"

I went outside and started to halfway jack the car up in the driveway, which is half of the first step completed so...

"I've done some work on it..." The ambiguity, again, places the sentence into a state of "unreality" and allows for subjunctive phrasing, in which you don't know how much is done. There's only a single task and you've only complete half of the first step, yet "some work" is true. Likewise if the task is "homework" and you've opened your book and read the first word, you've done "Some work" without even completing a single task. You might have 20 tasks to do or just one. You don't need to complete a task in order for it to be true, so this is not even "1+," it is "x>0."

In your other example, which is essentially the same as the one that I was complaining about, the statement is simply false. As soon as you say "some of my students can" you're pluralizing it. The plurality of "some" specifically depends on the plurality/collectivity/singularness of the noun-verb agreement. It is collective or plural, depending on what follows.

For instance: If you say "Some student" can read, you are indicating that a single student can read, and the only question is which one.

If you say I've completed "some task" toward completing your homework, you've done exactly one thing, and you're being weirdly vague about what that task is. Maybe you've only sharpened your pencil. I don't know. But "Some tasks" would mean that you've completed multiple tasks.

Do you see how you changed your sentence structure to collective/ambiguous in your examples, rather than the plural example given in the lesson, which you repurposed fantastically? Whenever we use the definitive plural conjugation of a verb, it has to be x>1. The teacher in your example was simply saying something (s)he knew to be false in order to save face for the children.

@Orca Park Yes. Some cats are feral street cats. Some are wild tigers. Not all are pets.

@CMas But even in the example you just gave, didn't use the definitive version of the verb "To Be." You didn't say "Some of the mangos ARE spoiled." What you did is the same thing that I said in my example, which you replied to. You said "Some of the mangoes 'could be' spoiled," using the subjunctive conjugation, instead of the definitive present-tense. We only use the definitive present-tense conjugation to express a state of assuredness. Your solid grasp of the English language did not allow you to use the definitive language to express doubt or a state of "unreality," even when you were attempting to tell me to do so. You automatically changed it because we all know inherently that it's incorrect.

This is what I was stating above when I laid out the problem with this question, as I said the following:

"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"

You did the same thing. You changed "are" into "could be" and it became correct. "Could be," "May be," "might be," any of these subjunctive adverb modifier work in the original question, just as they do in your example. And I still don't know when we're supposed to abandon the rules of English vs when we're supposed to parse it.

@jordkerns what about the concept that "Students" is plural, and so, must be more than one? How do you wrap your head around that, because I'm trying to and can't.

@Ayesha Shafiuddin "Students" also means more than one... It's plural. How can it be inclusive of one?

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").

@Annabelle Neidl

You probably just raised somebody's LSAT score like 5 points, by yourself, lol.

@APBookninja Still trying to decide. I'm leaning towards all-online, but I'm worried that will limit my law school experience, getting to know my cohort, who could all be important contacts in the future... However, I'm also worried about paying bills every month, and know that I kneed to keep working full time to make sure that happens.

@mattrettig I think they're similar but different. In the first part, the sub-conclusion, it merely states that there's a business interest, which is then supported by the supporting premise that those children will benefit the business {or whatever). Then because of that specific business interest, the final conclusion is that business should adopt those policies. Look at it this way:

Premise: Children are the future customers and employees of the business

sub-conclusion: Because children are the future, businesses have an interest in their care as children.

Then final conclusion: If businesses have an interest in their care as children, then they should adopt policies that facilitate parenting.

@victoriaisstudying

If it's too late for you, then I'm frickin' cooked, lol! I'm 42! But they're going to have to tell ME that it's too late! If this is something you want, you should go for it. You might not get in anywhere again, but don't allow fear to be the reason you don't get where you want to be. Make them deny you, don't cut yourself out of the running. Also, when you apply, make sure to apply to schools that you might have thought were beneath your resume. Yale and Southwestern Law school students who pass their state bar are all called the same thing: "attorney at law."

@rpo9

Same here. When I took my first practice, I didn't even realize it was being timed. You can get every answer correct and still fail!

@Jennifer Louis

I'm not sure that's what I took from it. lol.

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!