Hi! I'm interested. Took the August LSAT and planning on taking the October LSAT

I am still confused as to why PS<-s->A is an invalid inference? Could it not be true that some permanent seat counties are against increased spending on regfugeeds by the UN since P->I<-s>A? Could permanent seat holders not be part of the group that is against increased spending on refugees?

Is there a lesson that shows this type of bridging for sufficient assumption?