Can someone explain to me how AC C) for the most part hurts the argument. When we negate it, C becomes "There are degenerative brain disorders that can be cured without brain transplants". Okay wonderful! But the argument clearly states that "Those with degenerative brain disorders will form an ever-increasing proportion of the population." .

So yes there are degenerative brain disorders that can be cured without the transplants, but it doesn't indicate how many that would be. If its only 5% of degenerative brain disorders, then wouldn't the conclusion still stand that an ever-increasing proportion of the population would still have them?

Please help explain this to me because i think AC C) is still too vague and doesn't really hurt the argument.

I think one of my issues is that this contradict the criticisms and rules taught for NA questions. To NOT choose the extreme one. It feels like even if we negate it and say "Any child who has mastered the grammatical structure of a language has NOT learned the language". my response to this would be, knowing what kind of question I'm dealing with, "Okay. they don't need to have LEARNED it because we aren't asking them to have a PROFOUND KNOWLEDGE as we want to focus on them Learning the language" (Meaning there is still more to learn).

Learned vs Learning

The argument remains to be tenable even when its negated because we aren't asking these children to have a profound knowledge, but rather to have good progression in their education of learning.

To me, none of them are good Answer Choices because its not whats outlined in the argument.

I'm a little confused because this seems like an assumption we would have to make with not much info to go off of. It goes against certain LSAT rules, like yes we as readers would be interested but that feels like we are bringing outside information to the LSAT.

I think what put me off was when it said it would "depend on how probable it is that the opposition will try to derive an advantage from mentioning the negative information in question"

My brain sat there and assumed there would already be an advantage considering the information present in the paragraph. "The hostile revelation would be more damaging."

It would be damaging either way, but it just depends on the lawyers spin on it.

B - Negation: If we DONT rely on EXCLUSIVELY ON scientifically valid info --> attempt to diagnose their medical conditions are NOT likely to do themselves more harm than good

We know that people don't rely exclusively on scientific media. It gets paired with quackery

Our sufficient is satisfied, now onto the necessary condition.

If this was true, then our argument is destroyed because we want to prove that if we don't then we will do ourselves more harm than good

E- We will do ourselves more harm than good --> Rely on quackery instead of scientifically valid info. But we want them switched. Do more harm than good is our necessary. I need to come to the conclusion that that people do more harm than good when diagnosing themselves. Its not like its necessary way they can do more harm than good when diagnosing.

Note: The structure of the answer choices took up a lot of time, but its worth mapping out but also explaining this question while I was deliberating between the two is helping me for the wrong answer journal

can someone explain the undomesticated part for B. I just saw that out of all of them, this made the most sense but the undomesticated aspect perplexed me.

I wouldn’t say it’s obvious(I would say it could be) I really hate the wording they use because it takes away from the answer choice. But honestly, it was the only good option

My issue is that the conclusion is saying that it could we could REDUCE THE RISK OF DEVELOPING Alzheimers disease. So that puts it into a new realm where we are primarily focused on individuals who are at risk of developing it, rather than one who already as it. Thats why I didn't pick E

I may be coping, but that seems like the wrong word to use in such a stimulus. If they had said it decreased the risk of being diagnosed, like they did in the first sentence, I would be more inclined to pick E.

If someone could explain to me how even in development the answer E is correct, I would appreciate it. :)

Im very confused because B was looking very enticing as a whole but I couldn't really understand where they got modern art from?