@LiztheB no, I don't think the LSAT deals with simple probability-based relations unless the questions specifically sets it up as such and I think they will be explicit in that case (they will use the exact words, like icnrease probably, non-zero, etc.)

But realistically for most questions, I would call what the LSAT uses as "relevance based on the explicit content." In other words, my objection is correct in strict probability terms, where any statement that raises likelihood even slightly counts as support. But on the LSAT, support depends on the content of the premise providing a reason for that specific conclusion, not just logical compatibility. “Tigers are dangerous” contains content that directly explains why some mammals aren’t suitable pets, while “some mammals aren’t suitable pets” contains no content specifically pointing to tigers. So LSAT support requires content-based relevance, not merely a technical increase in probability.

@monmon I see what your saying but I think you can safely assume commonly accepted characteristics, e.g., tigers are powerful predators and not domesticated. Not every single detail will be provided on the test or in life/practice. But, from a strict formal logic stand point, you're not wrong. But that's why the LSAT is not 1:1 with formal logic.

Is it not ambiguous in question four, whether "them" refers to the attacks or the editorialists?

Or since the second part continues on about the attacks (ending), we should assume "them" refers to that since nothing further is said about editorialists?

How can you be confident that "its support base" doesn't refer to "society." Seems ambiguous, what tell you it's the regime they they are the support base of and not society? Semantically, both work, of course.

A small clarification: defining support only as ‘increasing the likelihood’ doesn’t rule out simple probabilistic increases. Under that broad definition, the reverse order isn’t a perfect counterexample to "providing support" as defined as "increasing the liklihood of truth"), because it does increase the likelihood that tigers are dangerous.

So here: "Does that “premise” make it more likely that “tigers are very aggressive” or that “tigers can cause serious injury to people”? No, I don’t think so."

But doesn't it? In a world where all mammals are suitable pets, tigers being dangerous has zero probability; in a world where some mammals aren’t suitable pets, that probability is non-zero. So as stated, the definition of support doesn’t fully exclude this case since likelihood does increase in the reverse direction too.

Might be helpful to address this because I think the way i positioned it above would get you in to trouble on the LSAT and it's not unreasonable someone might wonder that, "hey isn't it more likely tigers are dangerous in a world that NOT all mammals are suitable pets than in a one where all mammals ARE suitable pets."