I did not chose B on this one because I recognized there's a difference between knowing what the car repairs are worth versus what they are being charged for, I know to some that distinction may sound pedantic but this LSAT definitely has corrected me over small errors that feel like this. #help

Also looking for the answer!

I was thrown off by answer choice A because in paragraph 2 the relativist historians do make a claim, and I interpreted objective vs relativist historians as rival approaches to historical scholarships, but as of writing I can see why my previous statement is an assumption, but it doesn't seem like a crazy assumption? I don't see why using propogandist couldn't be refuting the real claim made by the relativist historians. #help

I'm sort of confused, for exercise 2, the statement "attempt to assassinate her fails" is diagramed as AAF, but not as /AA, such as "assassination attempt negated." So when do you know when to fully negate a premise or not? Doesn't the failing of the assassination attempt imply a negation of such attempt, leading to a change in the diagram? Looking for assistance, thank you!