Logically equivalent would mean it has the same quantifier.

With the second example sentence,

Many birds that migrate south in the fall do not return in the spring.

In this case why wouldn't birds that "do not return in the spring" just be a subset of "birds that migrate south in the fall"? Since, you can not return some place you weren't before.

I understand the expression "many" is a signifier, but does adding the word return cancel it out or does the word return not matter if there is the signifier?

He's already using A for P and B for Q, but does anyone know if this will follow a more formal/classical logic language or a sentential logic language? Or neither and I'm just going to get really confused?

#feedback providing context is so helpful! I appreciate the use of multiple methods of learning style: auditory, visual, reading, and analytical! I already feel more confident in the RC curriculum than the LR curriculum. Unfortunately, I needed this more in LR, because that is my greater weakness, but that does not diminish it's greatness!

#feedback This is a wonderful introduction and I appreciate the explanations of the structure of the module and the test layout. I think this intro is really helpful in preparing many people for success in 7sage's RC lessons and the test. Providing the context of how each lesson is set out will better allow me and others to learn in context as opposed to trying to apply context after the fact. Unlike leaning in context, applying context after the fact is confusing, time consuming, and often ineffective.

When I posted on the 7sage/LSAT reddit thread about this 5 days ago and now it's here just after I took it.

#Feedback I recommend adding support flows, where the answer should lie on the spectrum of support, and recommended methods for solving (diagram, lawgic, POE, hunt, negate the answers and use as premise, etc..).

When I posted on the 7sage/LSAT reddit thread about this two days ago and now it's here.

So, obviously 6E is incorrect, but P2 lists 4 ways to mutilate- Subtitling, Dubbing, Reediting, Retitling. Is reediting not the same as restructuring, I can see this, but I'm curious as to other's thoughts? Also it seems to me that maintaining an adherence to original intent is very important to the author, more so than literal translations.

So then why is cautious reediting/restructuring to make original intentions more clear LESS agreeable to the author than strict subtitling to adhere to the original words?

So, I was discounted A, D, and E because I didn't think it matched the domain. They referenced all people or no one, when the only domains referenced in the stim were recent university graduates and workers. Then I discounted C for the same reason, there was nothing stated about work environment for the domain workers which the domain of the answer choice: veteran employees is a subset of.

Is the above process an incorrect way to evaluate these question types or question types in general? Obviously, it was not incorrect for this question as it led to the right answer, but is my logic behind my process sound?