Is question 1.4 saying that every knight who wields an enchanted sword can kill a dragon, or is that like saying every mammal is a cat? Let's say Arthur, a knight, falls outside the "can kill a dragon" subset circle but within the "wields an enchanted sword" superset circle. He always wields an enchanted sword, but had a bad cold the day he confronted the dragon that slew him. Is that to say that an enchanted sword is necessary, as in it must be present, but not sufficient, as in it's not the determining factor?

Am I getting this?

Just think of B-Rabbit.

Is the "its" in question 3.1 supposed to refer to "restaurants," or to some location outside of the prompt?

I thought "taking" could be reasonably assumed to also mean "allowed to take"

God bless you @

Does "all," not imply sufficiency and necessity, then? I'm confused as to why "all" translates the same as "if" into lawgic but it's negated differently.

Does "all" always imply a conditional relationship?

Why is "after a week" sufficient and not necessary?

question about #3

How important is "innocent"? If the merchandise endangers criminals, would the exception not be met? Could the LSAT ask a question like this?

I'm praying you ladies find the one.