I got this one right initially, however in blind review I changed my answer to D.

I thought D was more right because it directly applied the missing assumption to her theory.

Would D have been correct if it had said Smith's theory about the relation of social circumstances to the understanding of meaning lacks insight (into her own social circumstances).

Was that extra blurb at the end all that was missing?

I got the right answer, however I was way over the target time of 1 minute. Specifically, it took me 7 minutes to get this right.

At this point in the course, how concerned should I be that it took me this long to get the answer?

I got this question right, however I have a question about the logic behind it.

In an earlier lesson on lawgic, it was explained that "not A" (/A) does not mean the opposite of A.

Example: (/Hot) does not mean (cold), it just means "not hot"

In this case, the conclusion of the argument says that "x is never sincere" therefore x -> /Sincere

Yet the answer to this question doesn't say x-> /Sincere, it says x-> insincere. Can someone please explain this? When I was reading this question I thought this answer may have been a trap.

What part of the LSAT is this information going to be applied? Are these lessons about subject, predicate, and referential important for the reading comprehension section? Or is this important for logical reasoning?