#feedback In the analysis of answer choice A, the author states that A, a wrong answer, could be amended to "It is a premise for the claim that water itself should be considered a polluter" to be correct. This does not seem accurate. For, it is merely an implied conclusion that water ought be considered a polluter. Instead, the stimulus' explicit conclusion is that "water itself is among the biggest polluters." Thus, what is integral to the stimulus' conclusion is an element of relativity that is not found in the author's amended answer choice A.

on a purely logical front, you're correct. all you can suppose is what is given in the argument. i think 7sage calls their use of logic intended for the lsat as "lawgic," which allows for some presupposition, because if they just said they were teaching propositional logic, then yeah the above argument wouldn't technically be valid and they'd hail a lot of similar criticism (even though that type of strict logicality isn't necessary or beneficial for/to the lsat).

#feedback 2:43 the blue circle line thingy looks like baymax from big hero six