Can someone explain this more clearly to me? I'm troubled by the explanations for this question and the latitude they give for an acceptable amount of inference.

I chose A over E because for E, Author B never explicitly states the Roma are special directly like Author A does, only that the identified problem "can be problematic" for the Roma. However, the explanation for E argues that Author B does consider the Roma to be special because they solely discuss the Roma, implying that it's acceptable to make such a loose inference. I could argue, though, that there's nothing preventing us from thinking Author B may believe other minority groups share the same characteristics as the Roma, and that they just happen to have focused on the Roma in this passage. We know the Roma are special, but the passage doesn't explicitly disprove the author doesn't.

As for the explanation for A: I understand and agree with the first part re: what Author A specifically is disapproving. However, the argument that Author B does disapprove of this freedom in international law hinges on the implicit assumption that Capotorti's definition is actually used in the real world of international law. It may very well be that this is a fringe theoretical framework that no one actually uses.

I hope I'm missing something. If not, this severely complicates my expectations for what I'm allowed to "reasonably infer" and what I'm not.

@ranorman123 This was exactly my thought process for ruling out B.

Does the order of embedded conditionals ever matter on the LSAT? For Q4, it seems the two sufficient conditions (10+ and 50+) were on equal footing and thus interchangeable, as the answer in the text vs. video switched their orders.

However, I can see a statement where the order might matter:

A person who drinks coffee will feel festive if the coffee they drink is a pumpkin spice latte.

In this statement, one sufficient condition (drinks pumpkin spice latte) is contingent on the other (drinks coffee), as one must be a coffee-drinker (superset) to drink a pumpkin spice latte (subset.) In this situation, should this be expressed as:

1) drinks-coffee -> (drinks-PSL -> festive), since the rule "drinks-PSL -> festive" is within the domain "drinks-coffee"?

OR

2) drinks-PSL -> (drinks-coffee -> festive), since the conditional should go from subset -> superset?

OR does it simply not matter, since both conditions must be met for the conclusion (festive) to be true?

TL;DR: If it matters, where does it make sense to place the logically preceding condition--on the inside or outside of the parenthesis?