I am having a hard time understanding the jump from being susceptible to change to being undermined. I understand the conditional logic and its contrapositive justification, but I find it a big assumption to assume that when something is undermined, it changes. They seem too disparate to justify?

If answer D had not said "the FIRST human ancestors..." would it have been a valid form of weakening?

If they had the same level of dexterity, both standing and not, then the argument's reasoning would fall apart and thus weaken the argument?

I am confused between B and D.

The conclusion in the arguemnt (1st sentance) talks about future crimes and would make sense for D in that it would reduce future crimes by therapists' persuasion.

In the following sentence or the premise, it talks about unreported crimes and crimes priorly committed. It would then make more sense to pick B in that it would weaken the idea that some "dangerous clients [are] out of prison" because at least some would be already in prison and safer for victims.

So for B, if it had said there had been

"medication that controls blood pressure that affects your quick to anger temperament,"

would that have been a correct weakening answer?

Just checking to make sure I understood E:

We can never weaken an argument by just directly contradicting the conclusion?

Is it safe to assume when there is the word some in a strengthen/weaken, 99% of the times it is too ambiguous of evidence to support/discredit the arguments?

y'all nasty for that

So would it be safe to assume that a question stem like this infers you to look for a strengthening element that completes the partial argument?

I understood the correct answer choice and was able to eliminate it.

However,

"People who have relatives with perfect pitch" does not imply anything about that person themselves having perfect pitch. It is just stating a trait of peoples' relatives and made me very confused. If it had said "People with perfect pitch who have relatives with perfect pitch, " That would have made complete logical sense, but without it, I am lost as to how one assumes that huge assumption.

How do you speed up lawgic notation time? I was able to get it right, but it took double the target time. I am finding many other lawgic notation questions falling behind as well.

#feedback

I mean this in the nicest way possible, but the other guy who explains the answers (Kevin) gives much better explanations of these LSAT questions. I appreciate this person explaining the answers and taking the time to do so, but 9/10 times, this guy skips over answers with sometimes no reasoning or doesn't provide any satisfactory reasoning for wrong answers. 29% of people missed D, and he spends 5 seconds quickly breezing by it. It can be slightly frustrating, but again, I appreciate him for even taking the time to help explain. I just wish it was Kevin.