@KevinLin Probably going to embarrass myself, but I can only think of 1 different valid argument being:

if /B then /A.

Using the example of A is cats and B is mammals: if cat (A), then mammal (B). If not mammal (/B) then can't be a cat (/A). But nothing else works since not cat (/A) doesn't mean not mammal (/B), and mammal (B) doesn't mean you have to be a cat (A).

I guess my confusion lied on the question where the rule is:

"Rule: If the consultant has business interests with the company → executive is likely to be overcompensated."

So I'm thinking then if not overcompensated -> then not having business interest with the company.

I appreciate your reply by the way!

Maybe I'm just too dumb for LSAT. Given the facts, when I read the last sentence about Pat I just assumed Walnut Lane must be the name of a neighborhood/town and so my assumption was the Walnut Lane location of VideoKing must be located on Main Street of that town since Pat got the discount there. That ruined the entire question for me working under the wrong framework.

In PT141.S2.Q4 its stated that you cannot do this with principles if its A -> B you cannot conclude /B, and those will be the trap answers. But from the conditional lessons it makes sense that if A -> B then /B -> /A just like here. What is the distinction where sometimes that's the trap and sometimes that's what were looking for?

@HimajaReddy In my mind the CMC offers a service that if I were to pay in advance I can ask you to grow the crops I want. If I just want 4 veggies, and customer 2 wants 7 different veggies from me then now the farmer is being asked to grow at least 11 different crops. So in this scenario a "CMC (myself) requests fewer than ten different crops to be grown" yet we are still following Whatley's recommendation to grow 10 different crops. Immediately in my mind D is now not supported.

Where did I go wrong in my thinking? Thank you!!

I chose B thinking that she used their style thinking it had little emotional impact because she wanted to tell her own shocking stories with an uninflected manner- like she hijacked their emotionless style to add a toned down element to her stories. I guess a major reach, but "misguided" also threw me off of A

Not a huge deal but, question 5 in the drill is 6 in the video and vise versa

These videos are really helpful!

My first time under time!

For number 4 I chose E over B because B states "Farming practices introduced for the sake of maximizing profits..." but the only thing we know about the farmers are "On our farm, we have great concern for our cows' environmental conditions." Thus, I figured we don't know that they introduced the practices for the sake of maximizing profits or they just did it because they love the cows and wanted them to be comfortable. But, I guess they do state that "thus it would improve profits." so you can infer it's done to maximize profits. I chose E thinking it was a linking one and that A->B->C->D and even though the "key" felt like a stretch I figured it was more aligned then with B. I see how its wrong but damn so tricky!

@CaldonJones Same

For my guess assumption I thought: "Assuming tigers will attack people." Since it just states they are aggressive and CAN cause injury to people you're assuming they are going to attack people. If it isn't true and they don't attack people then there isn't an argument. Am I on the right track here?