Sorry, that part isn't on KZfaq because LSAC doesn't let us show real problems (except for a select number and you have to pay a ton of $$$ to show them).

Yes, usually = most. Same with "probably."

Every argument assumes that its premises are enough to prove the conclusion. "Penguins have wings. So, they can fly." In this argument, the only premise I have put forward is that penguins have wings. If I think this premise allows me to conclude that they can fly, that means I must believe that if something has wings, then they can fly. If I did not believe this, then I would not be able to draw the conclusion that penguins can fly merely from the premise that they have wings. So, I am truly assuming that anything that has wings can fly (this is another way of saying "If wings, then fly"). Imagine if the statement "anything that has wings can fly" were false. That would mean the fact something has wings does not automatically prove it can fly. If that's the case, how can I put forth the premise that penguins have wings and believe that this premise, by itself, allows me to conclude that penguins can fly? If there's a possibility that some things with wings *cannot* fly, then my premise is not enough to prove the conclusion. Note how the assumption would change if I changed the premises of the argument: "Since penguins are birds and they have wings, they must be able to fly." Here, I'm giving you 2 reasons penguins can fly: they are birds and have wings. (I'm not longer just relying on the fact that they have wings.) That means I'm assuming, "If something is a bird AND it has wings, then it can fly." I'm no longer assuming that *anything* that has wings can fly. I'm only assuming that anything that is both a bird and has wings can fly.

⁠@@LuminateLSATthank you so much! This is incredibly helpful! No one explains LR as clearly and precisely as you do!

hahaha!! false assumption! You are in the right course...

Thanks for your time and help for these videos for the people who study hard for this test

No, I don't think they say that. If they do, they must have said that the negation for some is "All ... are not" (which means the same as "none"). For example, what's the negation of "Some babies are tall"? No babies are tall. OR All babies are NOT tall.

@@LuminateLSAT I copy pasted this from their lesson: "Some alphabets are not phonetic" The negation is that all alphabets are phonetic. The original says there's an overlap between two sets. The negation says "no" to that relationship. The original says "alphabet" set and "not phonetic" set overlap. The negation says "no" there is no overlap. That means the "alphabet" set must be "phonetic."

Yes, there's no contradiction between what we say. The initial statement says some alphabets are not phonetic. So, at least one alphabet is NOT phonetic. The negation is not "all." The negation is "All are ...not" (which also means "none...are"). So, if you apply that to the statement: All alphabets are not NOT phonetic. Notice that we have a double negative in the second part. "Not not phonetic" = phonetic. That's why it becomes: All alphabets are phonetic. Or, No alphabets are phonetic.

Unfortunately, not right now -- I've joined 7Sage in a content/curriculum role.

Hey you are smart!! Never doubt yourself, the LSAT is intentionally hard so you’re doing a great job!