I'm trying to think of how "some" can possibly mean "all."

Some inherently makes me think that it, the total quantity of anything is a value of the whole. If that value is up to the total quantity then it becomes all but also some? That is a bit of a stretch for my brain.

"Can I have some orange juice?" or "Every day a person needs some orange juice."

It could mean they are given all of the orange juice because they're annoyed they have to make another trip to the fridge.

I guess in that case if we're looking at this like a necessary quantify above none of it of it, it could also mean you could have a teaspoon of a carton or the whole carton, but even then you still have not consumed all the orange juice in existence.

To me these were easier to put together when I did not put them into logic but just let my brain do its thing.

I think what I don't like about this is I'm being asked to understand it which I kind of do, but not in the context of an LSAT question so I have no frame of reference for how organizing this information will ultimately help me answer a question correctly. I feel like I'm sitting down at a poker table with one card instead of two and told to place a bet without seeing how the hand plays out.

If you don't read the comic, you're missing out.

I usually use my lightsabre when I'm fighting other folks with lightsabres because it's the best way to demonstrate my ability to use my lightsabre. Does anyone see the problem here? I do.

At first I felt like some of these videos are super repetitive. Now I see that I never would have understood that if Luke is a Jedi and Jedi use the force that Luke uses the force.

Contradictorily

If Luke cannot use the force and Jedi use the force. Luke is not a Jedi.

Beginning to learn I am.

@MRod It's ok, Star Wars and logical reasoning don't usually go hand in hand.

Um Garfield is a cartoon character. Cartoon characters do not produce living young, therefore Garfield is not a mammal, he only represents one.

I think at this stage getting the right answer is far more important than the speed. It means that at least we're making our way to the answer.

@BraedenB Not everything will help the same amount. Right now they're giving you tools to use. Some will work for you some might not. It's just about allowing them to present ideas and things that may help you.

"I've read a few books in my day." - Useless comment by a hopeless future law student.

I'm not a lawyer, I'm not an admissions officer but the notion of success on a first try is not indicative of the challenge ahead in law school, the bar, and a legal career. The idea of accepting a result and working to improve it says a great deal more about who you are as a person and the work you're willing to do to improve foundational skills. It speaks to a person who will find success and continue moving forward over a person who hides their failings. We are a species that fails to then succeed. Own it, address it, convince them as a lawyer would that you believed in a result better than your first attempt and worked to improve upon it. That's what I would do. That's what I did when I applied from a lower tier school to then getting into USC after my first year. The improvement is proof of effort, the improvement is something to be proud of.

If using Mac you can open the diagram and go: Shift + Command + 3 to screenshot the entire thing and print it out.

@AbigailAhia It was a trick to try and get you to read into what followed the word "since" instead of paying attention to the use of the word, "consequently."

"There has been a surge in obesity rates," is a sub conclusion.

"There has been a surge in obesity rates," weakly supports the conclusion stated after the use of, consequently.

The Disney argument works well because it outlines a framework for the argument that the other two do not have. There are clear facts and a process at work. If one thing is true the other is not. Therefore if one set of circumstances is met it is because the other is not.

The tiger argument is weaker because it is basing the argument on one species of animal and providing two supporting premises that one can find flaws with. Not all tigers behave the same way and not all tigers are inherently aggressive. For example tigers in zoos do not all maul their handlers on sight and just because a tiger can cause serious injuries doesn't mean it will. The same argument could be made for a human being. One could make the argument that the institution that keeps the tigers has in a way made them pets for educational purposes.

The trash bin argument is the weakest because the evidence is circumstantial. Because there is nobody else to point a finger at, the cat is accused of the behavior, but the cat could have come in after the trash bin was knocked over. Or the cat could have eaten something else ignoring the trash altogether.