@GabrielaVillalobos the support is the relationship between the premise(s) and the conclusion(s). It is the strength, or lack thereof, of the logical relationship between them.

What this lesson is saying is that to understand these questions correctly, you need to assume that the given(s) and conclusion(s) are possible in and of themselves (i.e, if the stimulus states that "sharks are dolphins", don't fight them on the fact that this is obviously untrue in real life), and focus instead on the logical relationship between this statement and whatever conclusion is being drawn from it, and pick the answer that undermines that logic.

Rip it and stick it babbyyyyy

This lesson makes it more complicated than it has to be. The easiest way to think of the negation of most in everyday language is just "less than most".

@futurelawyerhopefully I would abstract the ideas of this lesson into the way the test messes with specific wording to trick you. The point is just to always pay attention to the specific wording of every question, because the test exploits the fact that in everyday life, we conflate the meanings of words that are technically distinct (like many and most) in our colloquial speech, whereas the LSAT (and infamously, lawyers) will parse out the tiny differences in specific wording to screw you over.

@Ebony AAF stands for "Assassination Attempt Fails", so negating would be saying "Assassination Attempt Does Not Fail", which is not what happened.

@KayleeMurray

Tom is tall - Absolute

Tom is taller than a tree - Relative

In both cases, you can reasonably infer Tom is tall. However, with the absolute claim, you know that because it simply states what Tom is, in and of himself. For the relative, you only know how tall Tom is in relation to a tree. If I took out the object of relation, it would just be "Tom is taller", which would not mean anything without the object of comparison.

@zleche I think that if that was the inference you were supposed to make, the word would be "most", instead of "more".

"Most" implies that the lot is more likely to developed as a community center than anything else. "More" implies it is more likely to be developed than something else, making the context necessary for one to be able to meaningfully infer anything.

@Daisy228 no problem :)

@Daisy228 I initially thought the same thing. The trick is in the sentence "as soon as we grant the truth of [the argument's] premises".

If you assume the truths that a) you can offer 10 goats for the Genie+ pass, and b) if you do not offer 10 goats, the only way to get it is to prostrate yourself before the altar, then there is simply no other way to get the pass, and you must do one or the other.

The difference between this and the cat argument is, that even if you take all the premises to be true in the cat argument, it still relies on assumptions to make those premises lead to the conclusion. For example, if you take it as true that the cat licks his paws like that after having eaten something, that does not mean that he doesn't also do that in other circumstances as well. Another example is that one needs to assume that the cat, like most, likes fish (and hence salmon). That may be conventional wisdom, but to accept that would be to take information outside of the argument itself as true and apply that to the situation (or, in other words, it would be making an assumption).

Hope that helps!