I don't understand why it can't be A.

Let's say I walk the same amount of time in the toning shoes and non-toning shoes. The stimulus says they receive receive no more exercise than each other. Meaning, they both exercise the same amount of time.

So initially I said, okay why would they exercise the same amount of time and then the toning is better? I figured there must be something innate within the toning shoes that provide better strengthening than the non-toning shoes. So that's why I went for A which said that the toning shoes strengthen the non-major muscles, which in turn would help the major muscles to improve. As that's how it works in real life. If my ankle muscles are strong, then that will help promote calf & quad strengthening in turn. It's like a football player who has weak ankles is more susceptible to calf injuries. The minor muscles help strengthen the major muscles.

I guess my only rebuttal to my thought process is maybe (probably) I'm introducing way to much real world interpretation into my answer choice? Like why would the LSAT expect you to know that strengthening your ankles helps your calf muscles? Any person who has never watched sports would never know that. If someone is going to say this isn't the reason why I'm wrong then I truly am totally lost.

Can you consider E wrong because it's just restating the stimulus' idea that health matters more than money? Like we have to take the stimulus at face value here and assume that because the author states that health > Money, therefore we don't need to infer that this is a legit idea?

I think what I'm getting stuck on is that in real life you'll have people disagree on this point and many would say that Money > Health for achieving happiness, so now I'm picking answer E because I need that point proven completely true because how can I truly know if Health > Money, if you feel me? But instead the author is saying definitively and without a doubt that Health > Money, and now I need to strike away answer choice E because it's already been proven and needs no inferring. My whole issue is that in real life I'd need the person arguing this to prove answer choice E first to me before we can continue, but on the LSAT with this stimulus answer choice E is to be considered proven because the author stated it was proven. Am I off base?

Sure feels like it - I'm getting 30% of these right going through this lesson :(

Is anyone actually writing these things down during the test? It has to all be in your mind's eye right?

I eliminated B in large part because why does it matter if its possible to do it or not? I feel like that answer could be inserted for almost any question where yeah of course something HAS to be legitimately possible to have happen. But that's too shallow of an answer to require picking every time if this question deemed it correct. Plus conclusion was talking about costs and not whether its possible to do it, so that's why I picked C as well as it talked about the costs.

What is the strategy if you happen to know the answer? Before looking at the answers I knew about the cartilage issue so just answered A and moved on. Is that fine? Probably wishful thinking and will never happen on test day though! #help (Added by Admin)

Is it bad process if I'm getting the answer correctly on my own using the contrapositive of JY's entire sequence? I ended up with this:

/Spacious Interior -> Uncomfortable -> /Well Designed

Then when looking at the answer choices saw D had Well Designed as a stipulation and failed the necessary so I contraposed back to get: Well Designed -> Comfortable -> Spacious Interior. Meaning Well Designed -> Spacious Interior gets me to answer D.

I'm mostly wondering if it's bad that I ended up with the right answer is an opposite way. Maybe it's just the way I think vs. JY and that's fine? Because my way made perfect sense to me.

#help Added by Admin