Shouldn't this say "Don't confuse necessity for sufficiency?" Meaning arriving more than five minutes after homeroom bell is a necessity for being cited as late. If we're told Kumar arrived 17 minutes after homeroom bell and conclude from that that he must have been cited as late, we are confusing something that is necessary for being cited as late for something that is sufficient for being cited as late.

@jessicaknight378 I think we can look at assumptions as unstated premises. The more those unstated premises support the conclusion, the stronger the argument is. I think the idea is that we can assume that anything explicitly stated in an LSAT argument is true. But is there anything NOT explicitly stated that the argument is relying on? And that is where the idea of truth or reasonableness comes in. In the real world, if someone were to make the following argument: "Rattlesnakes are dangerous and can kill people. Therefore, not all mammals are suitable as pets", you'd be like, "That assumes rattlesnakes are mammals, which they aren't. If you want to convince me that not all mammals are suitable as pets then you better come up with a better argument for it." So basically the reason why that argument is weak is because it relies on the assumption that rattlesnakes are mammals. The only way that argument holds any weight is if rattlesnakes are mammals and since they aren't then the argument falls apart and the person trying to persuade you that not all mammals are suitable as pets need to find better points to make to support their argument.

I'm confused. Some of the blind review questions I was told to do I apparently initially got right the first time. But I assumed since I was being told to do a blind review on that particular question that I had gotten it wrong initially, so I chose a different answer but it turns out I was right the first time??