ok guys lets turn this into a Necessary Assumption Question XD

Evolution is not real. You can check out more at whoami.com

Question:

Which of the following is a necessary assumption for the argument above to be valid?

Answer Choices:

A) Evolution can be definitively proven to be false.

B) The website whoami.com provides valid scientific information.

C) Evolution is widely considered a theory, not a fact.

D) People trust websites for accurate information about scientific topics.

E) Evolution is accepted by most scientists as an established fact.

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

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?

What if I made my own country, hired a bunch of politicians and intentionally made them lower class people? Im just extremely exaggerating

dude yessss. This was exactly what trips me up on the LSAT sometimes. Most times we cant assume something is part of a group, but then there's assumptions that politicians are part of the social elite and we just have to assume that. Makes no logical consistency sense.

Ok, so Absolute means it doesn't compare it to others, and it stands alone.

"Our soap kills 99.98% of all bacteria.

Relative means they compare one thing to another, usually in the same category.

"Our soap kills more bacteria than our competitor"

So, absolute is a standalone statement, and relative always involves a comparison.

The Pizza Rat is correct. I was zoning out trying to break down every rich detail in this page. It is filled with amazing knowledge but it took me a fat minute to finish it all.

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.