Can someone explain why 17 can't be B?

#help

I thought ‘some or all’ negated would be ‘some or none’. Uggggghhhhhhh

Am I the only one that thought AC D contrapositive would strengthen the argument more than AC A that seemed more like a justification principle?

AC D - most bills that pass into law did not have unanimous support

contrapositive - if unanimous support then some fail

so even if some bills that had unanimous support from all leaders of the major parties still fail to pass into law, wouldn’t that strengthen the argument the most that since all leaders of the major parties oppose the bill, it almost then SURELY will fail? Wouldn’t AC D speak to the almost certainty of it not passing or am I crazy?

Cause let’s say I don’t bring my world knowledge into the lsat and I can envision a legal system where even if all leaders of the major parties support a bill, a higher power can still knock it down, this could apply 😂 lol ima kmssssss this is nuts

I have the same thought process as you. Confused

Isn’t D’s reasoning pertaining to the strong verbiage in the last line - ‘net effect increasing the total amount of suffering’ and explaining that there could be a positive reaction to the moral socialization being decrease in behaviour that would require the socialization in the first place?

Wouldn’t that then be that the argument is failing to INclude the possibility of C?

That definitely surprised me too lol