Basically, we have to grab the sufficient conditional from the conclusion, bump it up to the premises, and consider them facts. I will attempt to give an example.

Not Transformed Argument:

Premises:

Alex has a reliable car

Alex lives in the city

Conclusion:

If Alex leaves at 7am, then he will arrive to work on time.

Transformed Argument. (All I'm doing is getting the sufficient and bringing it to the premises)

Premises:

Alex has a reliable car

Alex lives in the city

Alex leaves at 7am

Conclusion:

Alex will arrive at work on time.

After all that we can see the missing rule.

Alex needs to have a reliable car, live in the city, and leaves at 7am to arrive work on time.

Correct me if Im wrong anywhere

Its weird because ive seen definitions that some implicitly means "not all", but I guess for the LSAT, some can mean all. I think that's very funny

I chose D and I only crossed out C because it said concerns. Can someone help explain how the word concerns was part of the stimulus? My first intuition was synonym but I couldnt find one.

Basically (oversimplified)

When you see tons of sufficient conditions, just focus on the ones that are most important. How do you know they're important? They can be argued or contested (I think).

The first 2 listed arent as important. 3 and 4 are important so just focus on those. Prioritize the important sufficient conditions and set aside the not-so-important ones.

Did i get it right or miss anything?