I felt like I had a good grasp on flaws in formal arguments and could pin point the issue in these Qs but kept getting tripped up by the wording in the AC. This lesson I realized 2 things (that might have already been clear) but that I hope help anyone running into the similar issues.

1. The flaw of negating the sufficient condition is equivalent to sufficient/necessary confusion.

Argument: A -> B

Flaw of Denying Sufficient: /A -> /B when contraposed is just B -> A

2. Since they are interchangeable, the alternative phrasing for A in the lesson is just saying that the arg negated the sufficient condition

Arg confuses that under certain conditions (A) an action will be taken (B) (A->B) with a claim that in the absence of that condition (/A) that action won't be taken (/B) (/A -> /B). Contrapose back, it becomes B -> A

This might not be new info but hope it helps anyone that might have initially overlooked this like I did.

Felt a little confused by the difference between what an illustration of a generalization and support of a conclusion so I made up this example/explanation. If I went wrong anywhere pls let me know, I would really appreciate it :)

A illustration of a generalization is an example.

Generalization is taken to be true. Example depends on generalization not the other way around

If generalization is that all dogs that are adopted from the shelter have superpowers. The illustration would be an example of my dog, Lafayette who (for the sake of this example) has laser vision

Support of a conclusion

Does not take a conclusion to be true, rather aims to give support via info that make conclusion more likely to be true (in this case causal support)

We don't know that my conclusion that all dogs that are adopted from the shelter have superpowers is true

I have premises that lend support to that idea

• Dogs in the shelter are exposed to gamma rays and gamma rays have been known to cause superpowers.

• My dog who was adopted from the shelter has laser vision

In this format the same statement - My dog having laser vision - has a different function, it is not an example of an already established generalization rather it provides support to my conclusion.

In this LSAT example

Author is not saying that premises are examples of how superconductor development will probably improve industrial productive (even though they could be used as examples if conclusion were a generalization) rather they are used as support for conclusion.

I got stuck on E but then realized that it is wrong bc it only explains phenomenon going on in premises (why a critic's opinion increases or undermines pleasure in experiencing the artwork). It does not talk more broadly abt what that means regarding artistic merit which is what the conclusion is talking abt. Hope this helps anyone also a little lost on this one.

@JasmineMinhas Not sure if this will help but found it easier to visualize this way.

If I am in my room (subset) I am in my apt (superset).

If I am in my room - that is sufficient info to know - that I am in my apt.

That said, I can be in my apt in a place that is not my room (like the kitchen or something). Just bc I am in my apt does not mean I am in my room.

Being in my apt is necessary for me to be in my room. So if I am not in my apt (superset), I know I cannot be in my room (subset).