@JosephAmoAppiah It is, just only the first half of the negation. With "Some people do not enjoy movies," you still need to specify that it is not necessary to enjoy movies to be a person. That's why the second sentence exists; just to make sure that it's abundantly clear that one is allowed to be a person even if they don't enjoy the movies.

@Laylay I don't think this switch works. The root of the entire sentence (without any modifiers) is "turtles swim."

The given sentence "Many turtles swim across the Pacific to return to their hatching beach" gives no information about anything else that swims across the Pacific to return to their hatching beach (i.e., non-turtles), nor does it give information about what else the turtles could be doing when they swim across the Pacific (maybe there are some turtles who swim across the pacific not to return to their hatching beach, but for some other reason).

The rearranging you did to the sentence "Many turtles who return to their hatching beach swim across the Pacific" changes the meaning of the entire sentence, because you've put another modifier on the turtles (turtles who return to their hatching beach). Now, we're focusing on an entirely different subset of turtles.

"Turtles swim." That's all they do! My method is always to just strip away all the modifiers that I can until I need to use them again. I hope this helps!

@mekhi This is really helpful! Thank you :)

@Cee🦋 But isn't the / the symbol that indicates "not"?

@JiggityJack5 I literally wasn't even paying attention to the parentheses until I read this comment. Are they to differentiate necessary vs. sufficient? I don't remember that in the lessons

@Anthony.pardella@gmail.com Stated in a previous lesson that the order of premises/conclusion does not affect the strength or validity of the argument

@SavanahHoffstein Same! I think this is my main issue in RC when there are multiple paragraphs and you have to find the premises and conclusions to multiple different arguments while also just taking the given information as given information. So tricky to discern the two sometimes.

@jaypring This is what I'm starting to know as the truth about the LSAT as I go through these lessons, but I think I'm still not fully grasping it.

"Tigers are mammals" is a true assumption, making it more reasonable. A couple of lessons ago, J.Y. said that stronger arguments have "fewer and more reasonable" assumptions. Let's call this one Assumption A.

"Aggressiveness and the potential to cause injuries to people are factors that make an animal unsuitable to keep as a pet" is a "reasonable, true in most circumstances but false in some situations" assumption. Let's call this one Assumption B.

So if a question were asking about an assumption that would be necessary for the conclusion that tigers are not suitable as pets, we would want to pick Assumption A. But if Assumption A isn't an option, and we have Assumption B as an option, but there's some option Assumption C which is less reasonable than Assumption B, we would pick Assumption B? Even though it's not perfect but it's still more reasonable than Assumption B?

Is it just all circumstantial? What am I not understanding here?

@isabellagirjikian I think that it applies for those questions that ask something along the lines of "Which of the following statements, if true, most support the claim ____?" This is where the weak -> strong spectrum would come into play and you have to decide which one is the strongest.

Hello hello! My name is Ever and I am from London, Ontario, Canada. I graduated with a BA in Nonprofit Management in 2024 and I am planning on taking my first LSAT in November of this year. Feel free to connect, we're all gonna crush it!