Glad you found it useful! Let me know if there's any other topic you're interested in seeing a video on.

Let's examine the basic form of a "Some" statement: "Some apples are red." Because "some" means at least one, to negate "some", we just turn that into zero or none: "No apples are red." Notice that we didn't change the "are red" portion into "are not red". Imagine if we tried to negate the initial statement by turning some into "none" *and* "are red" into "are not red": "No apples are not red". The "no" and the "not" cancel each other out and it means the same thing as "All apples are red." Does this falsify the initial statement? No - "Some apples are red" is completely consistent with the idea that "All apples are red." (Remember, some means at least one, so it's inclusive of "all" as a possibility.) And that's why when negating a sentence that beings with "some", you don't want to touch the predicate verb. You just turn "some" into "none". If you turn some into "none" and negate the predicate verb, then you will end up with a statement that doesn't actually contradict the initial statement. (If you're having trouble understanding this, I suspect you might be thinking that "Some A are B" implies that some A are *not* B? If you think that "Some apples are red" necessarily means that there are some apples that are *not* red, then it makes sense that you'd think "All apples are red" contradicts "Some apples are red." But some just means at least one - and potentially up to all. It doesn't mean "a small number, but not all", like it often does in real life usage.) Now the museum example: "Some of the paintings do not look like they were painted by an adult." If we turn "some" into "none" and "do not look" into "do look", we get this: "None of the paintings look like they were painted by an adult." This means the same thing as "All of the paintings do *not* look like they were painted by an adult." Does this contradict the initial claim? No, it's consistent. The initial claim is saying at least one painting looks like it wasn't by an adult. But it's possible *all* of them do not look like they were painted by an adult.

"Some of the paintings do not look like they were painted by a child." To negate a statement quantified by "some", we can just turn the "some" into "none". So the negation = "NONE of the paintings do not look like they were painted by a child." If that statement makes sense to you, then there's nothing else we need to do to negate. So, to answer your question, we should not touch the part saying "do not look like they were painted" in this example. However, since the current form of the negation sounds really awkward with the double negative "None ... do not", you could cancel out the double negative and then you get another way to say the negation: "The paintings DO look like they were painted by a child."

Yes, every can be seen as either conditional or as an "all". The initial statement was "All people who found a golden ticket *were* admitted." To negate "all", you have to say "Some ... are not." So the negation would be "Some ppl who found a golden ticket were *not* admitted." If you want to turn the initial statement into a conditional: "If found golden ticket -> then admitted" The negation of a conditional would be to say that you can have the "If" part be true without the "then" part being true. So the negation would be "It's possible that you find a golden ticket but are *not* admitted". Or another way to put the negation: "Even if you find a golden ticket, you might *not* be admitted."

That wouldn't be a correct negation. The initial statement is saying that *only* people with prior experience will be considered. In other words, people without prior experience will not be considered, and you must have prior experience in order to be considered. The negation of this idea is that other people *will* be considered in addition to those who have prior experience. For example, consider the statement, "Only people with a 160+ LSAT will be considered for admission." Is the negation of this idea "NO people with a 160+ LSAT will be considered"? That doesn't make sense. The negation would be that other people besides those who have 160+ will be considered, too. In other words, the school will consider both people below 160 and with 160+.

@@LuminateLSAT That makes sense, thank you for the early response!

When you negate an "If-then" statement, you shouldn't just negate the "then" part. For example, consider the statement "If it rains, there will be traffic." The negation of this statement is not "If it rains, there will NOT be traffic." This is too extreme. All we're saying with the negation is that raining does not guarantee traffic. It's still possible for there to be traffic while it's raining, but it's just that the traffic is not guaranteed to happen. In other words, by negating the statement, we're emphasizing that the traffic *might not* happen even if there's rain. The negation is not saying that raining guarantees the absence of traffic. That's why in order to negate an "If-then" statement, we should say that the "then" part *might not be true* even if the "If" part is true. Another way to think about it is that with the negation of a conditional statement, we're negating the arrow. If the initial statement is "A --> B", the negation is "A doesn't automatically lead to B". The negation is NOT "A --> NOT B", since this statement would mean that A guarantees the absence of B, which isn't exactly what we're trying to say with the negation. So you're correct that we can rephrase the example to "If the movie studio can maximize the profits, then at least some films can develop a mass audience." The negation would then be "EVEN IF the studio can maximize profits, *it's possible that* none of its films can develop a mass audience." In other word, developing a mass audience is not a requirement in order for the studio to maximize profits.