#help

In the stimulus, the terms “the Main Street location” and “the Walnut Lane location” are used, and members who have not rented more than ten videos “can receive the coupon only at the Main Street location.” The final sentence states that Pat (who has not rented more than ten videos) can receive the coupon “at the Walnut Lane location.”

Under one reasonable interpretation of “location,” “Walnut Lane” can describe a sub-location within, or part of, a larger “Main Street” location (for example, a mall/complex location described by a primary address and an internal lane/area). Under that interpretation, Pat could still be receiving the coupon “only at the Main Street location” while also receiving it “at the Walnut Lane location,” because the latter would be a subset of the former. In that case, Pat’s ability to receive the coupon at Walnut Lane would not require that she be a non-member, and therefore it would not necessarily follow that some non-members can receive the coupon.

Because the credited response depends on assuming “Main Street location” and “Walnut Lane location” must be mutually exclusive branches, and the question does not explicitly state that these are distinct retail branches (as opposed to nested descriptions of a single location), I believe the question is ambiguous in a way that affects whether the credited response is logically forced.

@KevinLin

I also see the issue now. I was treating the plural subject as if it automatically carried an “all” reading, and I didn’t handle the “can” / comparative structure carefully. Given the LSAT’s ambiguity with bare plurals (and “can” often cueing possibility/existence), my “all–all / pairwise” setup was an overreach, and your pushback makes sense.

So I agree I shouldn’t have asserted that interpretation as the “most logically clean” reading, and I should’ve framed it as one possible formalization (and probably not the LSAT-default).

Thanks for taking the time to respond, I appreciate it, and sorry for the tone.

@KevinLin you didn't address the question. check my comment on this page... explanation of q4 is wrong.

#help #feedback

Question 4 is wrong.

Why it’s wrong

“Small animals can (are able to) move more rapidly than large animals.”

Most logically clean reading is a generic / all–all comparison:

Small animals (as a group) can (are able to) move faster than large animals (as a group).

So in strict “pairwise” terms:

• Every small animal can (are able to) move faster than every large animal.

Negation (one counterexample pair):

• At least one small animal is NOT faster than at least one large animal (= that large is as fast or faster than that small).

In plain English:

Some large animal moves at least as rapidly as some small animal.

but stoopid 7sage says: Either large animals move more rapidly than small animals OR they (referencing large and small animals) move equally rapidly.

@KevinLin Very fair.

@KevinLin Your intuition about the English is right: both sentences sound like they exclude the “wrong kind” of provider/adopter. But in LSAT “arrow logic,” there’s a key distinction between:

• what the sentence pragmatically implies (“and therefore others shouldn’t”), and

• what it literally/strictly encodes without extra words like ONLY.

1) Orphan sentence

“Orphaned children should be adopted by people whose primary purpose is not to abuse them.”

Everyday meaning: yes, it’s meant to exclude abusers.

Strict baby-arrow translation (safe/literal):

• ORPHAN -> SHOULD (adopted-by /ABUSE-PURPOSE)

This alone doesn’t explicitly state:

• ABUSE-PURPOSE -> /SHOULD adopt unless you treat “should be adopted by X” as “should only be adopted by X.”

And that’s exactly the controversy you’re noticing.

2) “Medicine should be provided by doctors”

Same pattern.

Literal safe form:

• MED -> SHOULD (provided-by DOC)

To get the exclusion rule:

• SHOULD provide MED -> DOC

• /DOC -> /SHOULD provide MED

This is wrong loll.

Where 7Sage goes beyond the wording:

Original necessary-side clause (inside the NH domain):

“it should be provided by an organization whose primary purpose is the promotion of health.”

7Sage turns that into an org-conditional:

• should provide -> PPPH

• contrapositive: /PPPH -> /should provide

But LSAT Hacks points out the key issue: “should be provided by X” does not automatically mean “only X should provide.” It can mean “X should (at least) provide it,” while not ruling out that others also provide it. LSAT Hacks says it would only bar others if it said “should ONLY be provided by …”.

So, in baby arrows:

• What the sentence clearly gives: NH -> (should be provided by a PPPH org)

• What 7Sage adds (needs “ONLY”): (should provide) -> PPPH

Quick sanity check (why “an” matters)

The clause says “an organization” (existence vibe), not “only organizations” or “no other organizations.” That’s exactly why LSAT Hacks says you’d need “ONLY” to justify excluding non-PPPH providers.

Bottom line

• Their first line (NH → should-provide-by-PPPH) is fine.

• Their later step (/PPPH → /should provide) is not guaranteed by the wording unless you treat “should be provided by” as implicitly “should only be provided by.” LSAT Hacks argues LSAC would have said “only” if that’s what they meant.

@J.Y.Ping Melvin literally said that? There must be a reason it is out of the question if he said so right?