While I chose D, I was thrown off by the second flaw explanation: "it takes for granted that any obligation to perform an action is a legal obligation." I read the second sentence of the stimulus as though a legal obligation is a subset of the broader category of obligations, so the flaw explanation that the argument presumes "any obligation to perform an action is a legal obligation" continues to not sit right with me.

I am having trouble seeing how D does more to strengthen the argument than C. Both answers seem to me to eliminate other possible explanations: C saying it isn't another neurotransmitter that is actually causing the damage, and D saying there isn't another source of the damage-causing glutamate. Both support the idea that glutamate is the cause of the long-term brain damage resulting from strokes. Why does D win out over C?

I talked myself out of answer choice D because I thought a purposeful movement of animals implied animal husbandry which implied an agricultural element to the society (i.e., not solely "hunter" in hunter-gatherer). And I chose answer choice C because I thought merely allowing plants to release their seeds through burning was less intentionally agricultural than animal husbandry. Sigh.

Editing note: The explanation for why answer choice C is wrong is lumped into the explanation for why answer choice B is correct.

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.