Can the error here be understood as a sufficiency / necessity confusion? People who believe Apple are seedbearing plants.... believe that apples are fruits (sufficient) But it is not a necessary reason for them to believe so. They can believe that red things are fruits, and see apples are red.

Is this a fair way to think about it?

I can't wrap my head around why B is not right. I read SFI to be a subset of PCM. (Maybe this is where I am confused). Since the superset PCM → not suburbs, how can SFI → suburbs?

I got confused by the "innocent people" in answer E... I was thinking that innocent people would include non workers (people who live near the factory..etc) In answer A, I really didn't think paying medical bills is far from taking responsibility.

Did anyone else make the same mistake? ;(

Answer choices A and B look like Antigone and answer C is perhaps Agamenon. Does anyone know which plays D and E refers to?

Grammatically, can't the conclusion be rewritten as "in a car accident, one is less likely to be injured if one drives a large car..." I thought the English grammar does not have clear distinction on where the condition "in a car accident" sits. The only thing I can think of is the rule that adding comma would make a condition neglectable grammatically. [a man, who wears red VS. a man who wears red]

In fact, because there is no comma separating the "being injured" and "in a car accident." I infer that the car accident is a necessary condition that has to take place. This leads me to think that in the conclusion, it is presuppose that an accident has already happened, making AC D seems irrelevant to me.

I chose A because of the unrepresentative reason that someone has mentioned in a different comment. Basically, the loophole I found was, "what if people in larger cars are more likely to get hurt under low speed conditions?"

LSAT writers are also not very accurate in their comma usage.

#help

So basically the last part means the critics acknowledge they are wrong? I am confused on how we get "there is public support"