I picked almost all the wrong answers before getting the right one, because I read the "Penn should not" as more of an evaluative statement that correlates with the "a police offer should receive the award" that is part of Rule 2 (act, saved life, exceed reasonable expectation). Rule 1 (eligibility) was stated in a more black and white way, so I didn't read that there would be an evaluative "should/should not" involved; I would have expected something correlated with Rule 1 to say "can/cannot" or "will/will not". So I did not understand that Penn had to fail Rule 1.

After reading/watching, I understand to look out for sufficiency-necessity fallacies in both the stimulus and the answer choices.

Stimulus: does not state that Rule 2 is the ONLY way to receive the award. Not an if and only if rule. So Rule 2 cannot yield any conclusions for failing the sufficiency conditions. That is why Penn has to fail Rule 1. 

Answer Choices: we already know failing the sufficiency conditions for Rule 2 does not yield any conclusions. But remember for the future (where a rule could yield valid conclusions), a particular instance of failing a sufficient condition does not mean that was the only instance. (Answer Choice B)

In the text summary for C, "in the ladder case" should be "in the latter case". I was thinking back to the question with the kids and the stairs and ladders!

#feedback: the Fact v. Belief v. Knowledge link is broken

I struggled with this one and was unsure why B and D would not be right. I understand now it is about clearly identifying the subject that the adjective "peevish" applies to: Allen's depictions, not the artists depicted.

Answer Choice C talks about Logic Games (LG) and various rules. I understand that LG is no longer part of the LSAT, but the LSAT writers will try to test the logic formerly involved in LG through LR. Will we be introduced to some of the LG logic and rules like the ones described in Answer Choice C more formally/systematically?

I was hoping for an update in the discussion about the horses

It doesn't change the conclusion of the court, or our general understanding of this passage, but just FYI, I think the reference to "prevented, by circumstances beyond their control, from exercising a tradition for a given period of time" refers not (only) to the 1910 treaty, but also since the occupation of the territory by Russia in the late 1700s. It is quite possible that there were still elders in 1991 who could recall those practices before 1910. However, for sure, practices before the late 1700s would not be within "living" memory but nonetheless passed down through oral histories or other means. Traditions (likely over hundreds or thousands of years) that were commonly practices but disrupted by the circumstances of Russian occupation (for 200 years) should still be considered by common sense as "traditional".  (I work in this field). 

I chose B because I read "zoologists classified" in the past tense, as referring to the classification as horses, and I thought the now-accurate classification and "rightful place" as as giraffes was the author's opinion, not zoologists. But that missed recognizing that "further studies showed" implies that zoologists did this and correctly classified them as giraffes, some time in the past.

Also, I now realize that the question stem is not asking us to identify any inaccurate statements, but rather not-explained statements.

Like some of the older comments/questions about correct AC (E), I had also thought "choosing to move on and sample other leaves" was an explanation. But now knowing that it is the correct AC, I can see how that phrase can be read more of an expansion/detail about the way that okapis leave preferred foliage uneaten, rather than an explanation for why.

Super appreciate the pro tips!

#feedback: The explanation for AC (B) is nested under AC (A)

Also the diagrams in JY's video would be helpful in the summary and ACs!

I appreciated Kevin's video explanation to understand why Confidence matters in this situation, though it seems to be outside knowledge. I would have thought that the premise that Confidence is NOT correlated to Accuracy, together with a reasonable assumption that Accuracy is what really matters in identifying a suspect, would imply that Confidence doesn't matter. So I looked for answer choices that focus on Accuracy.

I recall in the Core Curriculum that some premises can be extra fluff for distraction and are not used in support of the Conclusion. I assumed that the second sentence, [Factors can affect confidence without altering accuracy] to be an "extra fluff" extension of P1.

How can we tell the difference between a "extra fluff" sentence and a key premise on which the argument relies?

In my shallow dip, I saw C was logically equivalent was 100% confident about it, and moved on.

But I see now how the ACs can be tricky... E is "more similar" in reasoning structure than C. So for the future, we still need to dip all the answers...

I  got this right quickly but I think only because it followed right after the previous question. If I wasn't already looking for the same concept, I may have been flip-flopping with D, and unsure of when to take a charitable interpretation of an author's premise, and when it would be strawmanning. Here, it seems to me to be a reasonable weakness (it's true that it's an assumption), so it didn't seem "over the top" strawmanning. 

I think for future, I would think, ok, even if the author DID strawman the argument a bit, that still leaves a major flaw of having not proven his own argument of NOT the case that [making govt changes --c--> eliminate social ills]. 

#feedback, I think "daily" in the summary of Answer Choice D should be "duly"