I figured that perhaps, there is a threshold beyond where more potassium is effective. I don't think the argument is saying the more potassium you eat, the more it helps prevents sodium's bad effects. It's saying that the amount in fresh is great! The case could be that fresh has just the right amount of potassium, maybe canned or frozen has too much! How are we not making a million assumptions by making THIS assumption? I am so confused. If someone can help me, I would appreciate it!

I understand why the rest are wrong but I do not understand why E is right.

Not sure if "takes for granted" always trips anyone else up, but moving forward I am just going to replace it with "assume"

But we don't know if this measure will reduce the rate of traffic accidents? Even if we assume the principle is valid, that does not tell us whether that study is correct or this solution would indeed reduce the rate of traffic accidents. How is this not a total assumption on our part? Agree it's likely the best answer, but I don't agree that bridges anything. Can someone help me understand this bit?

I am SO confused by these "assuming" questions because I feel like E is part of the literal argument?? Like is that how the right answer for this questions should feel? It feels as if her conclusion "while this claim is true, it is neither informative nor of scientific interest" is just being restated by E. How is that a assumption?

Edit: I read it out loud and understand it now, yikes! Wish reading out loud was allowed on the LSAT! lol This does follow quite logically though, so is why it tripped me up! I always feel like I am about to fall into a trap with these!

Y'all. I am so stuck on not trying to make assumptions about the outside world. This is completely out of left field. It obviously makes sense and clearly is a necessary assumption in this outside world, but how was I to know that it was a possible assumption in the made-up LSAT world? When do you draw the line??

@nowackijake741 This simple explanation helped me a ton. Thank you!

What’s the main question you tell someone to ask themselves when brainstorming a personal statement?

gah, this is hard. I feel like we're assuming a lot with the correct answer. I work out how it works in my head, but we're assuming that the farmer will put it on the leader and that the farmer can even identify that leader. I was not trying to assume (as I have been told not to) but I feel silly for not picking this answer now! such a tricky balance.

How much should we be trusting our own intuition when we read these? For this one, I found I was able to use my intuition to get to the right answer quicker than following these steps. That said, following these steps makes me make sure that I am not confusing the necessary and sufficient, which I can sometimes do! I guess my question is, how do you know when you can trust yourself to take the training wheels off? Is that something we can do via blind review (check answers using this formula) or is having the training wheels faster every time?

The contrapositive argument for the Melissa one is confusing. Is saying less not confusing negation with opposition? Would it not be "not more than 5 minutes late" rather than less? I mean, I know in effect that is less, so I guess negation and opposition can indeed be the same?