I go to the store, I buy milk.

Since the store is sufficient in this sub/superset, then it is necessary to say "Every time I go to the store, I buy milk."

Since you can also buy milk elsewhere (farm, market, etc.) it means that just because you bought milk doesn't mean you went to the store, you could've acquired it elsewhere in this scenario, but if you went to the store, it is certain that you bought milk.

A sub-sub conclusion would be supported, but also could support a sub conclusion, which in turns supports the main conclusion. They are often declarative statements that both are supported and offer support.

This one was really tough for me to mentally map, thank you for making it clear!

Yes, I have personally been avoiding the writing of the mapping and when I get these wrong I try to mentally map on the blind review. If blind review is still wrong, I watch the explanations, try to make a note of what I missed, and try again. It's purely building intuition through repetition. Cheers!

I am also curious about this. I initially put AC 'E' after reading the entire stimulus, but upon blind reviewing, I only read Jane's argument, and immediately felt that 'E' was not correct, and that it had to be 'B,' since it is the only AC that is truly relevant to what Jane is saying. I'd say that for most questions that have 2 part stimulus, if the question stem is referencing one of the parts, that is likely all you need to read, especially if it is the first part. If the stem references a response (say if this stem was referencing Maurice and not Jane), it would likely be good to read both. It may be highly situational, but this question stem was made more difficult with Maurice's response muddling things up for me.

Since the argument is saying the recruitment of 18 year-olds relied on drop-outs, it is clear from C that the army did not have to rely on drop outs, as the numbers increased from graduates.

It cannot be A, as this simply does not weaken or strengthen, provides information outside of the argument parameters.

It cannot be B as "high-technology" is too specific, recruitment does not rely on operating a specific tech, so it leaves room for recruitment of drop outs to be needed still.

It cannot be D because it has nothing to do with the actuality of dropping out/graduating/recruitment. What the army encourages does not matter here, the numbers do.

It cannot be E because it lies totally outside the parameters, college does not matter regarding graduating high school/dropping out/recruitment.

I am trying to write out reasonings more, I probably skewed some information, but these past few drills have been really tough.

I need to read the Question Stem much more carefully, as there are often distinctions that are made, in which the Stimulus tries to misconstrue or muddle.

This one does not have that distinction in the QS.. Hopefully I don't sound like I am making shit up, sometimes it feels like I am not built for this but I am trying. Cheers!

I fell for the long trap. I saw "foreign social system" and thought yes, that falls into "any social system." But there are two generalizations I overlooked that make 'E' weak. One, the generalization of the technology being introduced completely ignores the "labor-changing" designation, but also it states that a foreign technology would undermine the social system itself, rather than the values of a social system as presented in the stimulus. Sigh.

My fucking impatient ass needs to READ THE QS. I keep getting these wrong thinking they are MSS and not the 'least supported.' Oh well, I'm barely 15 hours in to the study grind, we will get there.

as a lifter, I also had this problem. With the LSAT, the writers will often try to get us to make connections that are not explicitly stated to get us to lean towards wrong answers. Only base you knowledge off the writing, don't infer with your own. It sucks.