#feedback I only have the option to change the playback speed on certain videos!

Another example could be the more algae in the dolphins habitat the more the dolphins are found dead on the shore. But, lets say the algae blooms rapidly drop back to normal levels sufficient for dolphin life. This does not mean that the dolphin population will necessarily rise (or recover) with the drop in algae. Help!

You say in the video that the less you smoke, the less likely it is you get lung cancer. Do all correlations move together if you negate them like this? I'm not certain that makes sense in reality... For example, if Walt quit after 30 years, and now he is a non-smoker, his likelihood of getting lung cancer will not "move together" with how much he smokes---his history of smoking still puts him at a high risk. In sum, can we negate causal relationships on the LSAT? or if it is reasonable to assume that certain causal relationships only move one way...

As far as im concerned this is the plot of hillbilly elegy

None of it is contextual!

We are not trying to equate A and B... when we say all A's are B's we are definitely not saying A = B, we are saying that if you are A then you are B. This is distinct from saying A=B because A=B also means B=A, and we do not want to misconclude that B →A (that would be the oldest mistake in the book!). A and B are not interchangable, A is still just sufficient for B.

It cannot work with 'some' when some comes after 'all' for the following reason:

Consider that I own 5 marbles, and all of the marbles I own (A) are red marbles (B).

So thus far we can conclude A → B.

Now, some red marbles that exist also have blue stripes (C).

B ←s→ C

Does that mean that some of the marbles I own have blue stripes? Not necessarily. It's not IMPOSSIBLE that I could own one with blue stripes... there's just no way we can conclude that. Just because there are red marbles with blue stripes that exist, does not mean that I own them. therefore A → B ←s→ C warrants no valid conclusions.

Conversely, A ←s→B → C, does warrant a valid conclusion. Let's use the same example:

Consider that I own 5 marbles, and some of the marbles I own (A) are red marbles (B). We conclude that A ←s→ B.

If all red marbles (B) have blue stripes (C), that means B → C.

If I own some red marbles (A), and every single red marble has blue stripes(C), that means some of my red marbles have blue stripes, too.

A ←s→B → C

^^^ in what cases should we negate on the test?

wouldnt it be

All A are B – negation: some A are /B

since "all A are B" already includes the possibility of "some A are B" (because some could include all), so your answer would not entirely negate it.

additionally, I think that "many A are B" negated is just /(A ‑m→B), or, "it is not the case that many A are B". This way it doesn't necessitate that some A are not B, as the word "few" would.

Any feedback is appreciated :)

would it also make sense to visualize it like this?

If A, then B or C.

A

--> B

--> C

--> B and C

(imagine the arrows are all coming from the "A" lol)