I'm writing this for myself to wrap my head around it, but I hope it might help someone else as well.

"A cat eats lasagna only if their owner is home"

"the cat's owner is home"

"therefore, the cat eats lasagna" wrong conclusion

eats lasagna -> owner home

/ owner home -> / eat lasagna

The conclusion here is wrong because just because the owner is home doesn't mean the cat has to eat lasagna. It could also eat a brownie or cat food when the owner is home. But for the cat to eat lasagna the owner has to be home.

So, just because something is necessary for something to be true, does not mean it is true if the condition(s) are met.

For me this example is a little less confusing than the Kumar example.

#feedback

So why is the kernel not just "the cat likes to drink". Because you can ask "what does the cat like to drink?" milk. Doesn't milk modify what the cat likes to drink?

Do the majority of LSAT arguments fall into most/somewhat likely true because those are the type of arguments lawyers deal with the most? Or do the LSAT writers do this to be as "tricky" as possible?

Disney is the strongest because it gives you the only two ways Walt could've obtained the pass. Since Walt didn't do option B, it must have been option A, since Walt is in possession of the pass. This is an either/or, so if not B then A and if not A then B.

Tiger is second because although the conclusion is supported by the premise, it can be undermined. We only know that a tiger is not fit for a pet because it is aggressive and can cause serious injuries. However, dogs can as well and are viewed as suitable pets, so if we know that, why is a tiger now not a suitable pet? Is the possibility of aggression and injury the only determinator of whether a mammal is suitable as a pet? What about a blue whale, it is not aggressive, so it is a suitable pet? So although the premise supports the conclusion, the argument is not water tight like in the case of Walt.

Mr. Fat Cat is the weakest of the three because it makes an assumption that because the cat is cleaning itself like it always does after eating, it must have thrown over the bin. However, the cat could've also just finished its food in its bowl, or just caught and devoured a mouse.

Mr Fat Cat:; An apartment building collapsed. Buildings often collapse when there's an earthquake. So it must have been an earthquake that made the building collapse.

The detective assumes that the cat has toppled the bin to get to the fish because it was licking it paws and cleaning like it always does after eating. However, Mr. Fat Cat could've been eating something else that made him clean himself.

Tiger: not everyone can eat peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, after all some people have deadly peanut allergies. (should i consider epipens here, because the technically can eat them if they use an epipen quick enough)

Walt: The new Lana Del Rey album can only be bought on her website or in Target stores. Sylvia Plath has purchased Lana Del Rey's new album. Sylvia Plath did not buy the new album online. Therefore, she must have bought it in a Target store.

Please correct me if one of my analogous arguments are wrong.

Are both the Walt argument and the Tiger argument "must be true"? Because the tiger says "not all mammals" (conclusion), "tigers are aggressive" (premise), therefore it must be true that not all mammals are safe pets. Or am i jumping to conclusions here? I feel the Walt argument is more clearly a "must be true" because there's only two options to get the pass one of which we know Walt didnt do, whereas the Tiger argument is just a single example, it also could've said lion for example.

The charity call out lmao

Something I've noticed in question regarding animals, is that the "trap" answer almost always goes from a specific animal subclass (mammals/reptiles/birds) to all animals. Whereas the right answer stays true to the animal subclasses mentioned in the stimulus.

#feedback would it be possible to get a video for this?

So are "conclusions" that can be inferred from the Opera example that:

1) there are some trained who cannot recite the lyrics

2) there are some who can recite the lyrics who are not trained

And with Harry:

1) some of Harry's friends are not wizards

2) some wizards are not Harry's friends

If not, why not?

Please correct me if I'm wrong. But would it be safe to say that the "domain" essentially functions as context? In the sense that "yes its a condition" but it does not really "determine" the right to keep a pet or not in the example given. As the explanation says "why would a Londoner care about NYC laws regarding pets?" Would saying that everything that falls outside of the domain is "whataboutism"? It's irrelevant to consider those things outside of the 'context' of the premise.

So if I'd say:

Only black cats with four paws who are nice and like salmon are allowed in the house.

domain: "black cats with four paws"

rule: "nice and like salmon -> in the house"

Here "black cats with four paws" is the context in which my rule applies, right?

I thought it was an invalid conclusion because we do not know if the attempted failed just because she was not on the ship? She could have been standing next to the ship and still been killed? I know from my "outside" knowledge, I've seen the movies, that the attempt failed, but in stimulus it is not explicitly stated that it failed, that is an assumption we make.

But I also translated it correctly into logic after and came to the same conclusion. Can anybody help me out? Is my first line of thinking wrong?