Premises describe a phenomenon; conclusion is a hypothesis that could explain it; one explanation among many. The argument doesn't rule out rivals, so it doesn't establish the hypothesis, only suggests it as possible. Stating "trigger" is incorrect.

Honestly, I'm glad that I worked in journalism. This is making sense!

wait why am I learning WTH!!

@SusanLeifker Same I see that we have to learn all the skills then just boil it down to the basic.

Conclusion + Premise before it. Don't overthink it.

To make it easier. Understand that "Many" and "Some" represent the same concept but have different minimum thresholds.

For instance, "Some" must have at least one, and "Many" must be a reasonable amount above some or a reasonable amount higher than AT LEAST one.

I say this because of context. Let's first start with the minimum threshold

If I say, "Wow, I have caught some bad guys with my webs across the world," it means I caught at least one, but not enough to say I've caught hundreds.

If I say, "Wow, I have caught many bad guys with my webs across the world," that has to be at least higher than 1, 2, 3, etc.; a reasonable amount would be, like, 1,000? 10,000? 100,000? that's a lot objectively, but it doesn't mean I've caught all. Let's say all I've caught is 1% of all the world's bad guys, but if 1% is 100,000,000, that's many.

Now, we see that they have different starting points ("Many" has to start higher than just one), but depending on the context could mean 2 or 3. Think about if I said, "That one time Tony Stark threw a whole pizza box at me, I caught many slices." Objectively, that could be what 2, 3, 4, 5? I'm not sure how many are in the pizza box, but 2 or 3 could be many.

Now, note that neither of them assumes without context that all is done. By my statements, I can't tell you that I've caught all the bad guys in the world or pizza slices from Tony Stark (R.I.P). What I can do is state that some = at least one, and many means at least more than some (DOESN'T MEAN 51% many can start below 51%, could start at 1%, like how the example of me catching 100,000,000 criminals is only 1%, which isn't a majority of criminals, but it is many that are locked up in damage control).

Hope that helps!

I'm not going into the caveat that was mentioned in the lesson because, as lawyers who will be handling law without webs, you have to know the rules!

Also, screw A.I. this is all off the dome ;)

4/5 5/5 blind review but I still feel stupid LMAO.

This section makes a lot of sense to me. I've worked as an editor-in-chief, so I like the grammar part! I die when it comes to the specific, not real-life part, so much on conditionals LOL.

Keep going Bailey he wants you fr

HEY! READ THIS! Good! Ok, so look, I didn't like the winner explanation because I started assuming winner = better (trap of number 2). So I came up with a better idea instead. The LSAT compares at least two things correctly (maybe more idk yet) on a quality. The one that "wins" is the one that has more of that quality. So if more expensive is the quality then look for the answer that has that. IDK if that makes sense but it helped me! =)

ok stop procrastinating by reading comments and keep going!!!!

I am happy I was able to get it right! I was 26 seconds over, but just last week I was scoring at a 146, so I am happy that I am not stupid, but I just needed to learn the basics

3/5 Ok, so I got the level four right twice. This means I can do this, but I need to slow down. I always go too fast