i thought "some" can include "all" (depending on context) so how do we know that it doesn't here?

why doesn't the gold mines question imply "some"

are all of these questions informal logic?

is it wrong to map the stimulus as a chain that follows the sentence structure of the stimulus?

stimulus:

abs > ct > sa

/sa>/ct >/sa

C

/ss > /a

a > ss

the way its diagramed in the video is confusing but maybe i need to revisit an earlier lesson

I'm confused because the videos are showing ways of answering questions that we haven't learned yet.

On the LSATs do we always take premises to be true?

Does this mean you cannot strengthen an argument by strengthening the premise?

I chose C to strengthen premise to then strengthen the argument.

how does diagraming a sentence for structural clarity help us with taking the LSAT?

intermediary conclusion is the same as subsidiary conclusion?

@FavourAdelakun this is what i diagramed too

Isn't the presence of sea supporting a 2nd subsidiary conclusion which is that it's a primary factor in the development of life. Isn't this then a subsidiary conclusion that is also a premise supporting the argument's conclusion that there is reason to believe that there may be life on Europa? Doesn't this mean that E could be right?

so, when evaluating reasonableness of assumptions we can use real world knowledge?