For question 3, since we could translate many to some.. can many also be reversibly read such as in question 1? So if it's turtles swim across Pacific -many-> return to hatching beach. Can it also be many turtles who return to their hatching beach swim across the Pacfic? That doesn't sound right to me..

@NoraElkhyati Helpful, thanks!

For #6, I also had pet adoption center in my sufficient condition. But in the logic they just have website and 501(c)3 non-profit. That doesn't make sense to me because it could be an organization to help veterans.. if it has just a website and it's 501(c)3 that doesn't mean it can be eligible for the Mittens Grant. I think pet adoption center needs to be in the sufficient condition.

What I had:

pet adoption and website and 501(c)3 -> eligible

@Kevin_Lin I see, and since it doesn't preclude him from killing both is that something I should also map out in the logic? Or is that helpful to know for different answers that might show for a question on the LSAT?

@Kevin_Lin Thank you for your reply. With inclusive or, should we also account for a scenario where it is possible we will Rob AND we kill Bran. In this scenario, it's either if you don't kill Rob, then you kill Bran. Or if you don't kill bran, you kill Rob. What about if you killed both? Or is that not what the inclusive or is about.

@180-Energy Hi, I was having the same difficulties as you just now. Maybe this will help. See improvements -> master logic would be false because just seeing improvements doesn't mean you mastered logic. If you started at 0 points with your score, and improved by 5 points.. would landing at a final score of 5 out of say 100 points be enough to say you've mastered logic (even though your score has improved)? Mastery of logic is not a necessary result of a score improvement. Master logic -> see improvements makes sense because improvements could be on one of the reasons you mastered logic, so improvements would be a necessary thing to get the end result of mastering logic.

@HudsonDuff I'm wondering this too..

@Danaizha Yeah after doing some more lessons I think I've got it now. So when I originally looked at I thought of it as you need an immutable trait to then qualify for the suspect class. That reasoning is correct but you cannot write it as I -> SC, because the immutable trait is the necessary condition so the necessary condition must go on the left of the arrow (so it should be SC -> I).

Did anyone else have in their notes that "in order to" is a necessary indicator? I went back to the lesson and don't see "in order to" listed as one of the indicator words but had it in my notes for some reason. That threw me off for question 4.

For question 2, how come "Joffrey must kill Bran or Robb" can't be the inclusive and (and/or), which the video said is the most commonly form of "or" used on the LSAT. In the video example from that lesson, the inclusive and/or was used with a sentence "Jon must enroll in Econ101 or Polsci101 this semester" which mean he could do either class or BOTH of the classes. I don't get what's different functionally from the Jon example sentence and "Joffrey must kill Bran or Robb". There's nothing saying Joffreey can't kill both which is why the rest of my chaining ended up being different.

@aleiapierre123 But he literally said you could pick either idea and negate that idea in the lesson video..

@Kevin_Lin The video for the lesson didn't have "the only" listed as one of the indicators but the text below the video does. Are we supposed to be watching the videos AND reading the text? Is it possible to have the text and videos be consistent with one another?

I got I -> SC because I read it as if it's an immutable trait, then they qualify for the suspect class. Can someone please explain better why it's SC -> I?