I also saw E this way. The Anthropologists wasn't saying "X-->Y --->Z" is unwarranted since it could be "Y--X-->Z". It added an additional event, so it would have been more like "X--> Z" is unwarranted since it could be "X-->Y-->Z". But JY was on the nose when pointing out the difference between could and actually is.

@joeybruggers670 got degrees in government and disability studies with a minor in philosophy and I’ve never been happier than when reading liberal arts passages but am full of regret when I read a science passage lol

@SydneyRoper knew i was desperate for a win when my eyes started watering

@deji Agreed. Finding the conclusion tends to be a easier skill for me, and it feels like it's 90% of the task in this question type!

@TeklaCo Same, but then I realized that D dismantles the argument almost completely while C still had the potential for the argument to be true (more assumptions)

@Davviiiddd I thought the same, and I don't think it's bad at all. Being able to predict the answer is a great skill to have as we are picking up the patterns of LR questions.

@23houg I believe it is not every time, but it is a common thing that the LSAT does!

@VanillaCat this made me realize that my gap was also in the phrase 'than to' !

@akitasky101282 agreed, i even caught myself writing like this fairly often when writing essays for my phil classes.