the rare animal-cruelty LSAT question type...

Based on the logic given in the stimulus, could you conclude that no independently owned pet stores sell fish? because where he gets us to in the explanation of the correct answer is:

indie --> /fish or birds

i'm forgetting my foundations, does that mean if indie --> /fish ?

#Help Doesn't E fall into the recurring fault of introducing a different explanation for the conclusion?

I ruled out C because I felt it could still be the case that the company saves money even if C was not true, if you think of saving money on a long horizon. It could be true that you spend a lot of money installing and purchasing generators such that the cost outweighs the savings on electric bills one year, but that the electric savings over, say, a 10 year period outweigh the initial costs. It was my mistake to insert a timescale into the question where there wasn't one, and to not see how B was already sufficient (and thereby not necessary).

The reason I picked A was because I saw a goal being quickly achieved and not having sufficient power to cause great harm as contradictory. How would you quickly achieve a goal without gaining sufficient power to cause great suffering? On the blind review, I realized that in reasoning this way, I made many unwarranted assumptions about the goals of the revolutionaries and how great suffering can occur. But I also immediately saw B with fresh eyes. That said, I don't think it's correct to say that answer choice A is "nonsense", and by not explaining why it's incorrect you do a disservice to others who chose it.

Is it not implied that the UN Security Council is made up of those with permanent seats and those without permanent seats? Therefore, if all those with permanent seats are in favor of increased peace efforts and a greater role, and none of those without permanent seats are in favor of increased peace efforts and permanent roles, and further that some countries in favor of increased peace efforts are firmly against increased spending on refugees, then it must be the case that some countries that have permanent seats on the UN sec council are against increased spending on refugees because the last premise, while stating a some relationship, is as a matter of fact an all relationship. In other words, we know the "size of the bucket" of the increased peace keeping efforts group, because they are necessarily those with permanent membership on the Sec. Council, which we know because the Sec Council is necessarily made up of those with permanent seats and those without permanent seats.

In other words, all countries in favor of increased peace efforts are permanent members, and all non permanent members are against increased peace efforts. So if some of those countries are against refugee funding, we know that those have to be permanent members, and C saying "some" is just a lower bar. But still valid?

I suggest keeping the indicator words in the back of your mind, but not as the first thing you turn to when breaking down conditional arguments. These practice examples (especially number here and in the last one) show that many words can be used immediately before a sufficient condition, even if they are on the necessary condition indicator list. Especially the word only.

It helps me to manipulate the sentence until the logic being deployed is clear to the way my brain works. Often that means drawing a visual diagram first, either in my mind or on the page. That can also mean substituting in other words -- for "only", often "all" is a good one to substitute.

For number three here, I reworded the sentence in my brain to: "All birds who nest in the summits of the Andes are the highest flying birds of prey." Written this way, "birds who nest in the summits of the Andes" is clearly the SUFFICIENT condition to "are the highest flying birds of prey". But this also just makes sense if you think about the sentence visually. "Highest flying birds of pray" should be a larger bubble -- there are probably plenty that don't nest up high. "Nest in the summits of the Andes" should be a smaller bubble, because it's more specific.

Messing around with the language, and thinking of the sentence visually, helps to manipulate the logic so that it makes most sense to you. Be careful about relying too heavily on indicator words.