I still have no idea how tf E was the correct answer choice. I don't see how food was ever mentioned in the stem, so therefore how could it be correct. Someone help!

5/5 !!!!!

timed 3/5

blind 4/5

Progress!

@ALee24 this is so real...

Recently, I've found that breaking down the passage into logical components helps me understand it better. Although this process is time-consuming, reviewing the answer choices clarifies the flaws ONLY after I visually put everything in order, allowing me to visually identify the jumps on paper.

yes !!!!!!

@Daltjbol this!!!!!!!!

Here we go!!!!!!

I got this wrong, but I'm now understanding what I ought to be looking for when working on sufficient assumption questions.

This one was insane.........

The shorter, more to-the-point lessons feel a lot better to absorb and follow; like, the max should be between 5 to 10 minutes instead of the 16-plus minutes, which overexplains and then overcomplicates our understanding.

Okay..... I'm giving myself a pat on the back because I GOT IT RIGHT !!!!!!!!

4/5 timed 5/5 blind lets goo!!!!!!!

Yes!!!

I got the timed section incorrect but took my time in the blind review and then got it correctly. Slow and steady wins the race when you are just starting out.

This was an amazing lecture I'd watch more of her lectures if there are anymore due to her ability to explain things so clearly.

4/5 timed & 5/5 blind review!!!

I grasp the concept more with video lectures I'm not sure why this isn't the case for this giant section.

we finally made it to this section!!!

• Here, we examine another formal argument pattern: if “most A are B” and “most A are C,” then we can conclude that “some B are C.” Last formal argument needed to be familiar with. Formal argument #6. This is called “two split most". This has to do with the generic form of the argument where it has to do with the generic form of the argument. Has to do with the shape of the argument. This is an argument where you get two premises that say [A most B]. So most [As are Bs]. Another premise that says [A most C.]  So most [As are Cs.] When you have two premises that look like that, what must be true is that [some Bs are Cs.] There has to be a B and C intersection. 

• Premise: A - m → B       - m → C

• Conclusion: B ← s → C 

  • A B, A B, A B C, A C, A C 

• Example #1: “Most almonds grown in California are produced for domestic consumption. Most almonds grown in California require intense irrigation. Therefore, some almonds produced for domestic consumption require intense irrigation.” 

  • The conclusion follows logically! 

  • If it’s true that most almonds are produced for domestic consumption, and it simultaneously is true that most almonds also require intense irrigation, well, there’s at least one intersecting  almond that requires both intense irrigation and is produced for domestic consumption. 

    • Premise/Chain Link: [Almonds - m → Domestic]         [ - m → Irrigation]

  • Conclusion: [Domestic ← S → Irrigation] 

• RECAP: 

  • Formal argument #6 “two split mosts”: Most As are Bs. Most As are Cs. Therefore, some Bs are Cs. 

  • All arguments that instantiate this form are valid. We can substitute any concept for A, B, and C and the argument will still be valid. 

  • Premise: [A - m → B]

        [ - m → C]

  • Conclusion: B ← S → C 

• “Some cafes in the city serve hand poured single origin coffee.” 

  • “Some” quantifies over the subject set “cafes in the city.” It pushes “some” members in that set over to the predicate set “serve hand poured single origin coffee.” city ← S → hpsoc hpsoc ← S → city The “some” arrow is reversibly read. (A ← S → B) ← → (B ← S → A) That means if it’s true that some cafes in the city serve hpso coffee, then it’s true that some cafes that serve hpso coffee are in the city.

• “Most gold mines that supply unprocessed ore to Casterly Rock are running low on gold deposits.” 

  • “Most” quantifies over the subject set “gold mines that supply unprocessed ore to Casterly Rock.” It pushes “most” members in that set over to the predicate set “are running low on gold deposits.” Gold Mines Supply CR -- m → Low on Gold Deposit “most” are not reversible!

• “Many turtles swim across the Pacific to return to their hatching beach.” 

  • “Many” quantifies over the subject set “turtles.” It pushes “many” members in that set over to the predicate set “swim across the Pacific to return to their hatching beach.” 

  • If you want, you could translate “many” to “some.” I just want to make sure that you don’t mistakenly think that “many” turtles swim across…means that “most” turtles swim across because that's not true. 

• “Prof. Sprout’s Mandrake inspections are usually conducted on Mondays.” 

  • The quantifier here is “usually.” We’re talking instances of Prof. Sprout inspecting her Mandrakes. “Usually” says that “most” of those instances are “Mondays.” Mandrake Inspection - - m → Monday Does this mean that on most Mondays, Prof. Sprout inspects her Mandrakes? No. Absolutely not. For all we know, she only inspects her Mandrakes ten times a year. Eight of those ten inspections are on Mondays. There are more than fifty Mondays in any given year. Be careful not to read ( A - - m → B) as ( B - - m → A)

• “Fewer than half of the kittens adopted yesterday went to homes with children” 

  • “Fewer than half” means “most not.” Fewer than half of the apples are rotten means that more than half of the apples are not rotten. The quantification is over the subject set - “kittens adopted yesterday” - and the “not” gets pushed onto the predicate set - “[not] went to home with children.” [ Kitten - - m → /Home -children ] 

• Here, we take a step back and get some perspective on why we care about quantifiers. 

• “Many large pharmaceutical companies are racing to develop the vaccine for a novel coronavirus. This makes sense economically and morally as there are billions of dollars to be made and millions of lives to be saved.” 

  • If the statement above is true, then which one of the following is most strongly supported?

  • (A) Most large pharmaceutical companies are racing to develop a vaccine for a novel coronavirus. (this is wrong don’t confuse most for many!!!!!) it does not imply most! Not true!!!

  • (B) Some pharmaceutical companies are working on a vaccine for a novel coronavirus. (correct answer choice)  

  • (C) Some pharmaceutical companies are investing all their resources on developing a vaccine for a novel coronavirus. (wrong) It does not mention in the passage “investing all their resources” this is never mentioned and not supported. Just because companies are racing to develop a vaccine doesn’t imply that they are investing all of their resources. 

• RECAP: 

  • Much of the LSAT is about making supportable inferences. It’s important both to recognize when an inference ought to be made (e.g., “many” implies “some”) and to recognize when an inference is unsupported (e.g., “racing to develop” doesn’t imply “investing all resources”). 

• Here, we directly compare the meaning of “some,” “most,” and “all” in order to see how some quantifiers can imply others. “All” is a stronger claim than “Most.” 

  • All dogs like bacon → Most dogs like bacon   dog → bacon dog - m → bacon

• Let’s look at the relationship between “most” and “some.” “Most” is a stronger word than some and therefore a much stronger claim. What can be inferred from “most” is “some.” 

  • Most cats are funny → Some cats are furry. [The word “most” implies “some”]               cat - m → furry cat ← s → furry 

• So now we know “all” implies “most” and “most” implies “some.” That additionally means that “all” also implies “some”. This is because “all” implies “most,” and “most” implies “some.” So, therefore, “all” must also imply “some,” which means if we know that “all dogs like bacon,” it must also be true that “some dogs like bacon.” [dog ← S → bacon]. If the “all” claim is strong enough to support a “most” claim, it must also be strong enough to support an even weaker “some” claim. 

• RECAP: 

  • “All” implies “most,” which implies “some.” 

  • If “all X are Y," then “most X are Y” and “some X are Y.” 

  • Id “most A are B,” then “some A are B.” 

Here's my clean version notes with step-by-step breakdown on the first example.

• In this lesson, we start our language of Lawgic when dealing with relationships involving the quantity “most”. We first have to learn the element in Lawgic that represents “most,” and it’s this “most” arrow [ -m→ ] Notice how the “most” arrow is unidirectional. It is a one-way street, just like your standard conditional arrow. It does not point in both directions. That’s different from the “some” arrow, which is a bi-directional arrow meaning it points in both directions.  You must read “most” in an unidirectional way. You cannot read it reversibly. 

• Example #1 Lawgic: “Most students in Mrs. Stoops’s class can read.” 

  • Step 1: This is a claim in English that is amenable to translation into Lawgic. And to do that, we identify the indicator or quantifier. “The word “most.” 

  • Step 2: We identify the two main concepts or sets. (first set) the set of students in Mrs. Stoops’s class. (second set) is the set of students or people who can read. 

  • Step 3: Assign Symbols: (students) (read) 

  • Step 4: Add the “most” arrow. The Lawgic says (students) -m→ (read). Need to emphasize that the arrow is unidirectional. This is the point of difference between the “most” arrow and the “some” arrow. You cannot read this the other way around. 

• RECAP: 

  • To translate “most” claims to Lawgic, use the unidirectional “most” arrow: (-m→). The arrow is unidirectional because the “most” intersection relationship does not work both ways: “most A are B” is not identical to “most B are A.” 

Step by step breakdown:

• In this lesson, we start using our language of Lawgic when dealing with relationships involving the quantity “some”. “Some” must include at least “one” or could include up to “all”. 

• In Lawgic, the quantifier “some” is represented with this bi-direction arrow ( ←S→ ) with an S in the middle of it. The “S” in this arrow is to distinguish it from the bi-conditional arrow ( ← → ). 

• The quantifier some ( ← S → ) which expresses an intersection. Let’s look at an example…..

  • “Some students in Mrs. Stoops’s class can read.” 

  • Step 1: Identify that this is a statement, this is a claim that is amenable to translation. The way to do that is to (first) identify/notice the quantifier. Or the intersection indicator. In this instance it’s the word “Some”. 

  • Step 2: Identify the two concepts. Typically, they are sets. The [first concept] is “students in Mrs. Stoops’'s class” & the [second concept] is “student or people can read”. 

  • Step 3: Assign Symbols to represent these two sets. (Student) to represent students in Mrs. Stoops’s class & (Read) to represent the student/people who can read. 

  • Translation Into Lawgic : Add the “Some” arrow! (student) ← S → (read) This means you can read this arrow either from left to right or from right to left. What that means is that this statement here, “student ← S → read,” is identical to the statement “read ← S → student.” In Lawgic, these two claims are the same. 

  • Translating Back Into English: What it means is that “Some students in Mrs. Stoops’s class can read” is identical in meaning to “Some student that can read are in Mrs. Stoops’s class.” 

  • Example→ “Some cats are pets” is identical to the claim that “Some pets are cats.”  Translate into Lawgic: (c ← S → p)  (p ← S → c) All four of these expressions are getting at the exact same idea, which, again, is just the idea of an intersection between two sets. 

• RECAP: 

  • To translate “some” claims to Lawgic, use the bi-directional “some” arrow (← S →). The arrow is bi-directional because the intersection relationship works both ways: “some A are B” is identical to “some B are A.”