can i quickly ask if anyone happens to know off the top of their head, how is the rule-application/pseudo assumption question different from the previous general strengthening questions where they tell us that one way to strengthen the question is to state an assumption the question hinges on being true but doesn't explicitly state? Is this just asking for a more targeted version of that?

I redid the question twice and watched the explanation multiple times and for some reason this question is completely not clicking for me at all - I think the stimulus just doesn't make sense to me for some reason so if anyone can explain just one more time that would be great!!

i'm just curious here, how is this different from mistaking correlation for causation?

like for example in the circumstance "you do some research and find that high altitude training worked wonders (or didn't) for the American team in the Tour de France bicycle race, then that's pretty good evidence for (or against) your hypothesis [that high altitude training works for or against American marathon runners]"

both feature American teams, so on one hand you could use this circumstance to attempt analogous causation but if its the correlation that both feature American teams for example, couldn't this also just be attributed to maybe a circumstance where American teams put more funding into sports (or something along these lines)? i'm confused how this doesn't mistake correlation for causation so any help here would be really appreciated!

this might be answered in a future lesson, but i'm just curious. are there situations where "some" means "all" like the previous lesson said, and are used qualifiers as a sufficient condition? i know the example here is "some people who can read are students in the class, some students in the class are people who can read," but if we were provided more context before or after that statement that would include "all" as the meaning of "some" students in the class (the meaning being "all students can read in the class"), are there cases that the LSAT expects you to use this as a sufficient condition?

i hope this question makes sense!