User Avatar
brendan.curran.paul
Joined
Jun 2025
Subscription
Live
User Avatar
brendan.curran.paul
Edited Saturday, Jan 03

@Kevin Lin Thank you for clearing this up for me! Appreciate it a lot :)

1
User Avatar
brendan.curran.paul
Edited Sunday, Dec 28 2025

@Kevin Lin Thank you for this clarification. However could I trouble you for some additional insights into this, as your comment just sparked something in my brain as to whether it could be possible to understand the above to be in a parallel relationship with negating the "All" quantifier, namely:

[Negating "Some"]

1) Initial: Some A are B (A <-s-> B)

2) Negates to: No A are B (A -> /B)

[Negating "All"]

3) Initial: All A are B (A -> B)

4) Negates to: Some A are not B (A <-s-> /B)

But notice that the 1) and 4) above, don't they amount to saying the same thing? Namely, saying "some A are B" effectively the same thing as "some A are not B" (A <-s-> B = A <-s-> /B?)

IF it is the case that the above statements 1) and 4) mean the same thing, shouldn't their contrapositives 2) and 3) also effectively mean the same thing? Ah but here I realized I walked into a contradiction, as there's no way "No A are B" would mean the same as "All A are B"...!

Thanks for indulging me as I thought aloud here--but I guess my qualm with 1) and 4) above still stands, that whether defining "Some" to mean "at least one" rather than "less than all" would be considered more a matter of linguistic convention than it is a matter of strict logic.

The motive for asking this question also stems partly from the fact that I do not come from an English-speaking country, and could not help comparing the meaning of "some" in English to the meaning of "some" in certain other languages.

Hoping to hear back - Many thanks!

1
User Avatar
brendan.curran.paul
Friday, Dec 19 2025

Question:

If what we are doing is denying the "some" relationship, couldn't the negation work both in the negative and in the positive senses?

Namely:

['Negative' negation]

Initial: Some parrots are clever.

1st step: It's not the case that some parrots are clever.

Final: No parrots are clever.

['Positive' negation]

Initial: Some parrots are clever.

1st step: It's not the case that some parrots are clever.

Final: All parrots are clever.

If any error(s) in logic were made above, would appreciate corrections and explanations. Many thanks!

3
User Avatar
brendan.curran.paul
Sunday, Dec 14 2025

@haena Thank you so much for the explanation, it really helps a lot! Thanks for the moral support as well :)

2
User Avatar

Friday, Dec 12 2025

brendan.curran.paul

🙃 Confused

Most Strongly Supported (LR) vs Implied (RC) -> What's the difference???

Hi everyone! First post here.

Decided to write my question here because honestly I didn't know where else to direct my question (that said please let me know if there is a better forum for these types of inquiries.)

My question is: can anyone please help explain how the "Most Strongly Supported" (MSS) questions in LR and "Implied" questions in RC are different? I've been approaching them pretty much as identical question types that can be approached with the same type of reasoning mode (e.g. spectrum of support diagram) but it seems like -- having gone through hundreds of these questions thus far -- there is actually a small but significant difference between the two question types.

Would welcome any advice on this (+ moral support is also welcome!) from my fellow LSATers! Cheers and good luck to all :)

1
PrepTests ·
PT106.S3.Q14
User Avatar
brendan.curran.paul
Wednesday, Dec 03 2025

Hi! Can somebody explain why this can legitimately be categorized as a "Main Conclusion" question? Judging by the "implied" nature of the answer to the question (i.e. answer choice A) it seems to me this could fall into the "Most Strongly Supported" question type instead. Perhaps this could also be incorporated into the foregoing discussions as to why (A) is the best choice here.

1
PrepTests ·
PT135.S1.Q25
User Avatar
brendan.curran.paul
Monday, Jun 16 2025

Thank you for the visual explanation below. However, my question is:

  1. We are given that if a public place is UNcomfortable it is NOT well designed.

  2. But does it necessarily follow from this that if a public place IS comfortable, that it IS therefore well designed? As it is currently written, can't the stimulus allow for the possibility that there could be a comfortable public place that is NOT well designed, since the statement "all comfortable public places are well-designed" is not explicitly stated?

2

Confirm action

Are you sure?