what confuses me is that in earlier lessons, we were taught to accept the premises in any given stimulus as being true -- namely, to not question the studies presented. How do we know when to apply this rule or not, since in this prompt, we didn't apply it.

I only got this right because the study made me upset. How evil! haha. I guess attacking arguments really does work.

Doing the contrapositive on each answer and seeing if it destroys the argument is what helped me with this one. For (E) if people could easily change their mind then that would destroy the entire argument.

LSAT demon does a better job of explaining SA. The explanation provided by 7sage just makes me more confused and less confident - causing me to choose the wrong answer. Anyone else feel similar?

I am not getting the majority of SA correct. anyone else? :/

He says answer choice E is true, therefore is it is wrong. What?!

Just to be clear, of negations: to make it necessary the necessary condition must go on the right. To make it sufficient, the sufficient condition goes on the left. Where to place the conditions based on necessary or sufficient isn't quite clear to me.

The passage does say that the war would not have happened if it weren't for the treaties and military. so how is D speculative?