We don't have to assume, the stimulus tells us that Y is more qualified for the position. More qualified than what? Than McG. It's a referential statement. We must accept all statements as true.

To play devil's advocate, there are a limited number of real LSAT questions. The study plan assumes that once you're finished, you'll start drilling and doing PTs for weeks / months. So, could be an effort to avoid spoiling a large chunk of real LSAT questions before you even have a chance to try them out.

I had to lean on my own intuition to get #3. The way I thought of it is that the sufficient condition(s) must guarantee the necessary condition.

I know from the sentence structure that "infected by the virus" is at least the first sufficient condition (Anyone is a Group 1 indicator, variation of Any), and "produce antibodies to fight the virus" is the necessary condition (it is a required outcome of being "infected by the virus." If you remove "after a week", then the stimulus turns into "If A then B")

Looking at "after a week", does it guarantee that antibodies will be produced to fight the virus, or is it a required outcome if someone is infected by the virus?

It doesn't make sense to say that "after a week" is a required outcome of being infected with the virus, but it does make sense to say that "after a week" (or a week's worth of time) does guarantee that antibodies will be produced to fight the virus in conjunction with being infected with the virus.

Therefore:

infected by the virus and after a week → produce antibodies to fight the virus

/produce antibodies to fight the virus → /infected by the virus or /after a week

If one does not produce antibodies to fight the virus, they are not infected by the virus or have not waited a week.

Another thing that helped me is remembering that we must consider all statements as true. Try not to let your "outside knowledge" inform the logic. Obviously, it isn't a real-world guarantee that waiting 1 week will always produce antibodies, but if all the statements are true, then it is valid.

The adaptive drills honestly make me feel worse lol

missed the very 1st one because I failed to recognize "where" vs. "only where" and put "hunting is permitted" as the necessary condition. Need to slow down and read more carefully, but happy that I was able to figure this out on my own after seeing the answer.

guys im scared