Yeah all of these he eliminates answers that have anything to do with an alternative view (opposing arguments, other sides, etc) and I just don't get that. I'm obviously not as aggressive as he is being, but does that come with time or is it necessary to be that aggressive? I usually can get it down to just two answers. I think that would still make the method useful. IDK.

Honestly the cost of this course is worth it for this lesson alone, LFG! I was so bad at this type on my diag test. Now I'm knocking it out!

Could you also say that the question stimulus is using the "context" sentence as reasoning by analogy? Like because this happened in this situation, it can happen in another? Or are there too many other lines of reasoning for that to be a factor?

Is it odd/wrong to think about some of these questions (logic based questions in general) kind of like algebra questions? We are trying to find X. I'm not sure if this is the case for all LR questions, but it just hit me on this question.

Is it correct to say, based on the stimulus, that having porous outer shell bones is sufficient (or at least assumed to be sufficient, I recognize not a casual argument exactly) to being a deep diver, but not necessary? And so not having porous outer shell bones doesn't mean not being a deep diver, but not being a deep diver means not having porous outer shell bones (implicitly). Is that the gist?