I got A as well... here's where I'm at:

The inverse of A is "People are no better at judging the aesthetic value of a painting when they compare it with another painting [than when reviewing it alone]."

If we're trying to make the argument invalid (abstracts paintings are aesthetically pleasing because when compared to children's paintings, abstracts are rated better), answer A doesn't actually touch the argument. A is making a claim comparing people's rating abilities between two scenarios.

A might be assumed if the argument were something like "While historians believed abstract art was aesthetically displeasing because of independent reviews of abstract art, in newer studies where participants blindly compared abstract art to aesthetically pleasing K5 paintings, participants rated abstracts as more aesthetically pleasing." But in the prompt we're looking at, wether or not someone is better or worse at rating art if there are other pieces to compare it to is irrelevant.

I think if you take the meaning away from "cited as late" and just use it as a general label, that might help. Like if you replaced the terms with nonsense words:

Students are "XYZ" only if they arrive more than five minutes past the last ring of the homeroom bell.

Let's say that this rule governs Kumar, a student. Kumar arrived 17 minutes after the last ring of the homeroom bell. On the basis of those facts and that rule, would it be a valid inference that Kumar is "XYZ?"

If Kumar is 5 after the bell, he can be XYZ

"only if" doesn't mean the same thing as "if" or "always".

ex: You can get a cookie "only if" you do your homework.

If you do your homework and cheat, you can't get a cookie.

If you do your homework but didn't turn it in before we run out, you can't get a cookie.

So for the lesson example:

You can be labelled late "only if" you arrive 5+ after the bell.

If you arrive 17 minutes after the bell, you can be late, but you might not be if you have a good excuse, don't get caught, teacher is later than you, etc.

That really did help, yes.

Contrapositives have been throwing me for a loop this entire time. I think I'm starting to finally get the concept enough to use it.

Thank you!

@alexharriswv74 said:

I applied for it 6/18 for October test, haven't heard anything back, so I think it may not have been approved.

Update: I got the approval letter last week.

This has been the most helpful part for me so far. That just finally clicked for me!

I think I'm understanding this part...

To be a cat is sufficient to be a mammal, but not necessary. Just because something is a mammal doesn't necessarily mean it's a cat, so "cat" is not necessary to be a mammal.

To be a mammal is necessary to be a cat, but not sufficient. If something is a cat, it is necessarily a mammal, so being a mammal is a necessary condition of being a cat. To say something is a mammal is not enough information to infer that is also a cat, so being a mammal is not sufficient to cat.

My first thought is "what purpose does this phrase serve" questions on the LSAT.

example:

Q: "What purpose does the statement that the food is unpalatable serve in this passage?" A: to identify a criticism of the argument that the author intends to invalidate

I think because it's not really an argument. You're not trying to prove that you're hugging the person, and the fact that you missed them is not evidence to support a claim that you're hugging them.

I'm hugging you because I missed you. I always hug people I've missed.

The whole thing could be a conclusion, where you're trying to prove a motive, but unless the person who was hugged didn't know or believe that hugging is currently happening to them, there's no argument.

I applied for it 6/18 for October test, haven't heard anything back, so I think it may not have been approved.

So, if you have to assume that nothing has changed since the last time you checked a fact, it's an assumption, even if you're really sure it's true. If it's implied but not stated, it's an assumption.

In the world we live in, tigers are classified as mammals. But what if there were a decision made tomorrow that reclassified tigers as a fish, like bees in 2019? That would change the argument:

Tigers are now fish, and are aggressive. Therefore, not all mammals are suitable pets.

Doesn't work anymore.

Why is it that some arguments are stronger than others?

Some arguments include a fallacy, flawed reasoning, or are incomplete

And what can account for the ordering of these three arguments?

Disney is first because when all the premises are true, there is no other possible conclusion.

Tigers is second because it assumes that an animal that is aggressive and /can/ injure a human is automatically not a suitable pet. Makes sense in the real world, but it's not explicitly stated.

Trash is last because the premises, if true, only suggest the conclusion, but there are many other ways that all the premises could be true but /not/ the claim that the cat did it.

Including examples of non-arguments was helpful.