The tutor explanation for (c) contains an error, I believe. It states: "Descriptively inaccurate. Craig reject’s Rikfa’s implicit premise that they are lost. There is no indication that he accepts Rifka’s explicit premise. It’s unclear if he’s implying anything. Rather, he explicitly contradicts Rifka’s conclusion."

Rather, it should state: "Descriptively inaccurate. Craig reject’s Rikfa’s implicit premise that they NOT are lost. There is no indication that he accepts Rifka’s explicit premise. It’s unclear if he’s implying anything. Rather, he explicitly contradicts Rifka’s conclusion."

@PaulABrox This gave me a delerious laughing fit, and the sense of validation I needed.

I think the explanation for why D is correct is flawed: "Some argue that TV ads cause violence on the basis of the fact TV ads can influence consumers. Bardis points out a fault in this argument, but concludes on the basis of this fault that TV ads do not cause violence." The explanation states Bardis "concludes on the basis of this fault that TV ads do not cause violence", but what Bardis actually concludes is that "violent television imagery" does not cause violence. I did not and do not take TV ads to be synonymous with violent television imagery/television violence in the stimulus.

@Elijah_Mize I agree. The explanation for why C is wrong in the question interface feels very gaslighty! I sort of follow what the tutor is saying, but if this is how the LSAT writes, it feels very sheisty!

(Maybe already stated, but I don't have time to read all these comments): "never" is not included as one of the common [negate, necessity] indicators but multiple examples use "never" in this exercise. Might be worth adding "never" to the list.