I get the methodology but it still doesn't make sense. Lowering LSAT from 178 to 177 turns Berkely from a reach to a target

força caralho

I'm confused about the explanation for A. It says the stimulus doesn't rely on conditional reasoning, but isn't the flaw that it holds that a condition (stringent regulations) is necessary to bring about a result (landowners not protecting endangered species) and therefore concludes that removing that condition would prevent the result from occurring, while in fact the condition is merely sufficient to bring about the condition and therefore removing it wouldn't necessarily prevent the result.