Some additional flaws that I spotted in D were the fact that the stimulus never addressed promotion policies (only hiring, firing and customer service) and D never clarified that such employee was another employee's family member either

Hi! You asked this two months ago - not sure if you are still confused but the way I see it is that since that first part of the stimulus is saying "depends on" and goes ahead to compare both factors ("as much as") this leaves some room for ambiguity because while yes, oftentimes when "depends on" is used it indicates a necessary condition but here it is being used more to provide context on how both factors are equally important without providing a strict if-then relationship between leadership and them. It took me a while to get that and I also translated that part into lawgic when solving this and just ignored it when I saw that none of the answer choices referred to it at all... When you're reading it for the first time it is hard to see that but after reading it more carefully while I revisited the question I could see why it is used for context

I got this right but was confused about whether for a lot of the options we could say "consistent" for Jo when all we know is that she believes that productive → alone and, therefore, /alone → /productive and so we don't know she feels about /productive people... For A I was very tempted to say "unsupported" for Jo because she doesn't address /productive in her statement but after doing some research I realized that on the LSAT we must understand that if something does not contradict a rule (for example two productive people working together) then that is CONSISTENT with the rule. However, if it is the case that we don't have enough information to determine if something contradicts or is aligned with a rule THEN that is UNSUPPORTED - we just don't know. Here, in A and in other cases, we knew that /productive people working together was not breaking Jo's rule so that is considered consistent

That was my thinking as well - we can say that one increases the other decreases because that's what the stimulus states but we cannot say anything about the entire amount of Oxygen left in a body of water because they never talked about it

Speaking from a more "lawgic-oriented" perspective, I said that C is wrong because it confuses necessity for sufficiency (oldest mistake in the book as he always says) - based on the stimulus we can only that if there is no bacteria eating plankton that guarantees that there is no agricultural runoff (contrapositive of what is said in stimulus: /agricultural runoff → /bacteria) but not having agricultural runoff does not ensure that there will not be any bacteria to devour plankton

One thing that I noticed - and please correct me if I am wrong - but I believe that besides the fact that B is an example of "the oldest mistake in the book," meaning that it reverses the conditional relationship making it look like if 250+ population → SS, it also wrongfully uses "exceeds 250" since the stimulus clearly states that SS → at least 250 (meaning, a population of 250 or more). So even if this option was re-written to indicate the right conditional relationship, if it did not replace "exceeds 250" with "at least 250" or "250 or more" it would still be wrong because it would say "if the population of panthers is ever SS it exceeded 250" which can be translated to SS → 250+ - which is different from what the stimulus says (SS → at least 250)

It's much easier to just kick the "any proposal for a new dept" up to the domain and keep in mind that's the concept we referring to when breaking down the conditional logic for this - not sure why he didn't use this strategy

Did anyone else eliminate E because of the different "degrees of certainty" in the stimulus vs the answer choice? The stimulus clearly states that NO antibiotic that has been tested against bacteria X has been able to eliminate it and the rule in stimulus states that bacterias develop resistance to ANY antibiotic used against it (unless they are able to eliminate it completely). To me that sounds much stronger than saying that X is more resistant to "at least some" antibiotics that have been used against it - in my opinion that implies that maybe X became resistant to only some of the antibiotics that did not eliminate it, which goes against the rule

I got this right but for the wrong reason I guess - what really confused me here was the fact that the stimulus used awards as a way to indicate that small companies had superior designs - I interpreted this as not being an indicator of one's quality (someone might have connections that ensure that they will get award, etc.). I think that this is a good reminder for me not to let my own biases and outside knowledge interfere with my rationale and stick to the stimulus

It doesn't exist in the original answer choices, he just used it to exemplify how that would have been a much more ideal (strongly supported) answer choice than C because it uses "some" instead of "all" (not that strong of a statement), but as he said, it is not always that the correct answer choice will be the ideal one

I had the same question and ended up choosing D over E precisely because of how E was worded - what helped me understand why E is right is the fact that the new causal relationship that the editorial proposed is the "alternate explanation to the correlation cited": always remember that although correlation does not mean causation, it can be evidence of causation and the existence of that potential causation might explain why there is a correlation between two phenomena (it is either a correlation where A causes B, B causes A or C causes both A and B). It might also be the case that there is no causal relationship at all and the correlation is only happening as a coincidence. The observers stated that there is a correlation between the phenomena, which they explained by saying that growth of gvt services causes NGO services to decline (A causes B). By acknowledging the existence of a correlation and proposing a new causal relationship between gvt services and NGOs (B causes A), the editorial is just providing an alternative explanation for that correlation. Hope this helps!

By stronger they mean because ‑m→ refers to most and ←s→ refers to some. It is much stronger to say that most people agree with me on a certain topic than that some people agree with me on a certain topic (some = at least one, it is not a lot). So most is much stronger. In this case, they are referring to the idea that if we say that "most people do x" that is equivalent to saying that "some people do x" because most also encompasses some. Hope this makes sense!

Same!

The correct format for a valid "most" argument is

A ‑m→ B

B→C

------------

A‑m→C

Agreed! I always use them

Yeah, it would be "some of those who like milk are cats"

That's what I was thinking - thank you!

Also, not sure if I am mistaken, but for question 1 I think that he wrongfully said in the video that when we negate X → H (X ←s→ /H) we are supposed to consider that some could be anything between 0 and except 100. Shouldn't this be anything between 1 and except 100? Given that some means "at least 1"

In order to determine when to interpret "all" as a quantifier or as a conditional indicator to figure out my approach to negating the claim, I always ask myself if the claim is talking about a "universal statement about a group" or if it is more of a "rule that shows a necessary condition." If it's the first case, I interpret all as a quantifier and the negation as A ←s→ /B, if it's the second case and all is a conditional, then I use the A and /B negation - is this correct?

Does anyone know a way to visually represent this with circles that would represent sets? Similar to what he did in the previous lesson about negating all?

"Some dogs are friendly" is not the negation of "all dogs are friendly" - what usually helps me whenever I get confused about the relationships between sets is to draw them as circles. "All dogs are friendly" (D --> F) means that D is sufficient for F, therefore, D is the subset and F is the superset (D is contained in F). In the case of "some dogs are friendly" that's the intersection between the Dogs set and the friendly (beings) set (D F). This means that out of the entire set of dogs, there's a certain portion that intersects with the friendly set (some dogs are friendly) but there's others that do not intersect that corresponds to the negation D /F

Yes, it's the same thing as saying "it's not the case that all dogs are friendly" which also means "some dogs are not friendly" because they are not in the intersection between the "dogs" set and the "friendly (beings)" set, therefore, they are "not friendly"

Does anyone know what symbol we should use to represent overwhelming majority in lawgic form?

This might be a silly question, but "several" was listed as a quantifier that indicates an intersectional relationship a few lessons ago but I don't see a lesson dedicated to it... Does anyone know if we should think of it as the same as "many"? And in that case, would it be considered equivalent to "some" as well?

Yes! That's kind of how I paraphrased it as well :)