@BenWillGold Oh my gosh I think you're right. It's possible I'm too literal for the LSAT.. thank you! :)

I'm getting stuck on where it says "Yet, it's crazy to suggest that some violinists at the New York Philharmonic are not exceptionally good. They are all exceptionally good."

I thought the valid conclusion would be that we can't say for certain that they're "not exceptionally good" nor "exeptionally good", we just don't know either way. If there's no premise for us to say with confidence that ALL violinists in the NY Philharmonic are exceptionally good then does this text assume that? Why can the text say it's crazy to think some (at least one) is not "exceptionaly good" (outside of the fact that one would have to assume they'd have to be "exceptionally good" to be in the NYPhilharmonic).

For #5, is it incorrect for me to have answered "some cats who fantasize about attacking their owners live in a loving home," rather than "some things who live....?" Might be overthinking it, but could that kind of assumption put me in danger of misunderstanding an LSAT question?

@Kevin_Lin thank you :)

About the penguins around at 25:07, I'm getting caught up pn "none of the penguins live in the jungle". I feel like this suggests that of a specific subset of penguins, none of them live in the jungle... but that isn't the same as saying "No penguins live in the jungle." Why is this saying we can just equate the two statements?