Pls dont fix whats not broken…. Where do i find custom drills?????

Problem with necessary assumption is that LSAT treats it as "the only requirement".

Exactly! A is an assumption required for one of the premises. But i dont think thats the issue with the design...

I have a huge problem with this. Here is a stronger version of A: Everyone at the museum gets min wage. I agree on what A says: a 5% increase is a significant issue. But will the mandate only affect expenses in a vaccum?? You need many necessary assumptions for A to be true: The 5% increase will not lead to higher employee satisfaction, and employee satisfaction does not make the museum more attractive and it will not increase sales. Even if it did increase revenue, its small. I can litigate A into oblivion.

if it was the first answer choice, would have banked a massive extra 10s

Problem is not people dont understand what these means. Problem is that LSAT treats necessary condition 'as the only condition'.

Question asks you to litigate the inference, that means use the author's own merits to cancel him. That's nonetheless the priority, cleanest way to ridicule someone's intellect.

When a question says "fails to consider", "takes for granted", thats when you cant use the case's own merits to attack him, you try to find the hidden assumptions that weakens his line of reasoning.

when i first read an LR question I was ready to pull my head, why are you so intentionally being vague! you could have rephrased the same thing in a much better coherent way!

in Canadian common law, words and terms in a contract are never litigated in isolation. People think words carry absolute meaning, but thats not how courts read agreements. Just because you wrote "any child born" its not gonna unlock some massive payout. Judicial system is not to be mistaken with a lottery system