Why C is wrong and D is right:

P1: Books, used by teachers to facilitate teaching students, are one of the many factors that helped the setting up of schools. P2: Books are being displaced by electronic media as the primary means of communicating information these days. C: Electronic media will bring an end to traditional schools.

Flaw: (1) Just because books helped set up an institution, doesn't mean the institution will collapse without books (confusing a necessary condition for a sufficient condition, and also something necessary for a past event may not be necessary for the present day continuation of it). (2) Just because there is a possibility that something may happen (schools may close), doesn't mean it will happen (schools will close).

It is very important to understand that 1 is the more fundamental loophole in the argument, that is, only after 1 has been plugged can 2 even be considered another argumentative loophole. Until we establish how crucial books are to the continuation of the school, we can't even say that books not existing may lead to schools ending. If we know that will happen, then we can say that the argument's flaw is schools may end doesn't mean schools will end.

P1: People who have good motives for committing crimes deserve less serious punishment than those who commit crimes with bad motives. P2: Bad motives can be presented as good. P3 (Sub-conclusion from P2): Thus, motives are a matter of conjecture. Conclusion: Thus, judges should never mitigate punishment on the basis of motive. Loophole: What if you deserve mitigated punishment because your motive was genuinely good and not good because of a judge's conjecture, so you actually deserve mitigated punishment? Assumption (block the loophole): Regardless of whether or not the motive is genuinely good/ whether or not the person is deserving of mitigated punishment, their punishment should not be lessened (implying you'd rather punish someone more than what they deserve, not less than what they do).

I was a little uncomfortable with AC B at first because while the second half of the sentence (not erring on the side of overly lenient) feels supported by the passage, the first half (erring on the side of overly severe punishment) felt too strong. However, I remembered during the review that the goal of sufficient assumption questions is to strengthen as tightly as possible, and adding the part about overly severe punishment being better than overly lenient blocks out all weaknesses in the argument.

I picked A at first, but it is so obviously wrong because having laws that do anything does not, in any way, strengthen the conclusion about judgments. You can have a law that outlines the principle of the conclusion and it would still not strengthen the conclusion because we need judgment, not laws that support the principle. And if B is a general principle (not specific to laws or judges), it guarantees the truth of the conclusion.

Created an analogous argument that helped me break this down. I am trying to do this with questions I get wrong because they really help me hone in on what mistakes I made. In case this makes more sense than dense physics language:

People say eating healthy is one of the many things that help you to live longer than average (causation; OPA). If this was the case (A), living longer would guarantee good mental health (B). I studied people who lived longer than average and observed that they did not have good mental health. Therefore, I can conclude that eating healthy is not a cause for people living longer.

The obvious flaw here: What if the people who lived longer than average I studied are not people who eat healthily? What if they lived longer because they have good genes, better quality of life, less stress and good exercise?

Remember, that the premise states that there are many causes for a long life, not merely eating healthy. Living longer with bad mental health (B) means healthy eating is not causing my long life (A), that's all. It doesn't mean healthy eating will never cause a long life.

So how do we arrive at the author's leap of a conclusion that eating healthy is not a cause for people living longer? We have to block this glaring loophole with a sufficient assumption: Having a long life must have one cause and one cause alone—eating healthy.

Rephrasing the argument with the new SA:

P1. If eating healthy is a cause for people living longer, people living longer are mentally healthy.

SA: If you are a person with a life longer than average, healthy eating is the cause for this.

P2: I studied some long-living people who are not mentally healthy.

Conclusion: Therefore, eating healthy is not a cause for people living longer.

Applying the analogy to the real stimulus:

P1: If superheated plasma in which electrical resistance fails (SP fails) causes ball lightning (BL), BL emits intense light and rises in the air (I+A).

SA: All types of BL have the same cause of SP failing.

P2: A physics professor observed BL without (I+A).

Conclusion: Therefore, SP failing is never a cause for BL.

A: Eating healthy does not cause other types of health-related outcomes except leading long lives [How is this addressing the flaw? It isn't; so it is wrong]

B: Each of the studies I conducted on people who lived longer than average were verified by at least one of my friends. [In JY's voice, so what? Still can't come to the absurd conclusion that eating healthy does not lead me to live longer].

C: Living a long life can be an outcome of many factors. [This is an assumption we are attracted to because it feels the most reasonable. But on the LSAT we don't make reasonable assumptions. We make the ridiculous assumptions the test-makers need us to make, to tighten very unreasonable arguments. So this assumption would weaken the argument significantly whereas we need an assumption that not only strengthens but strengthens 100%.]

D: Going to therapy can help with mental health problems. [Completely irrelevant to the argument and the flaw, so obviously wrong]

E: All instances of people leading longer lives have the same cause. [All people who live longer do so only because they eat healthily. Paraphrase of the pre-phase, and right answer. It proves our conclusion 100%.]

This is a fantastic summary I think! Just wanted to add to why I think D is incorrect. I also picked D both during the review and the test, but am realising, now that I'm trying to justify A as the answer, that D can just as well be true without having any impact on the argument. Non-flowering plants relying on bees do not do anything to establish whether flowers depend on bees or bees depend on flowers. It is entirely peripheral to the argument. In order for it to strengthen the argument the way you say, we have to first assume that flowers are dependent on bees, therefore, if non-flowering plants are also dependent on bees flowers have to compete more for the bees. Concluding that flowers depend on bees based on this AC constructs a circular argument. If you don't assume flowers depend on bees, and take the fact that non-flowering plants are dependent on bees as a given, it does nothing whatsoever to tell you whether flowering plants are similarly dependent on bees or not.

Sharing my thought process on why all answers except C are wrong:

Something that might better support the explanation for C being right and the other ACs being wrong is understanding more clearly the relative nature of the conclusion 'more harm than good'. To weaken the argument, you can take any of ACs A, B, D and E and assume that the 'good' they do is equal to or more than the harm caused by premises 1, 2 & 3. Because more harm than good is such a broad conclusion, the author is assuming P1 + P2 + P3 = definite proof of more harm than good. You can introduce any factor to counter the author and assume that the good it does is equal to or more than the harm of P1 + P2 + P3.

Such an assumption is reasonable for weakening/strengthening this argument because a similar assumption is built into the open/vague nature of the author's conclusion. To accept the conclusion you have to assume, P1 + P2 + P3 is more harm than good. So to counter the conclusion, you have to assume that ACs A, B, D and E do at least as much good as the harm of P1 + P2 + P3. Thus, each of them could potentially weaken the argument. (C has no bearing on it.)

More people likely to vote in an election does not necessarily undermine the conclusion. To undermine the conclusion we have to demonstrate that winning the debate does bolster a candidate's chance of winning the election (premises don't support the conclusion), and just because an exciting debate can lead more people to the polling booth does not mean they will vote for the winning debater.

I think the 'even' part of AC C strengthens it because it seems to suggest that even those who don't lose their jobs have savings, which insinuates that those with jobs aren't are not the only people who have savings. So if many people (with and without jobs) have savings, they can increase spending on consumer goods even without a job. Additionally, you can be a person with a job and no money and you can still increase spending according to AC C. So it really nicely exposes the flaw in the argument.

Also because Terry's argument structure is if (no jobs + no money), then you can't increase spending, you can show that there are different ways to break sufficient and still get necessary. You can have a job and no money and increase spending. You can have money (savings) and no job and increase spending. You can also have a job and money and increase spending. Terry wrongly assumes that (no jobs + no money) is the only combination possible in the circumstances of a depression.

Can somebody explain why we are taking the fact that artistic merit plays a role in whether or not a statute is removed as a necessary assumption that Monica makes? It seems that the more obvious necessary assumption for her is public opinion doesn't matter in whether a statue is removed or not.

#help (Added by Admin)

Conclusion and sub-conclusion are always vulnerable to attack. Premises never are. The nature of the support helps us evaluate whether or not a conclusion or sub-conclusion is strong.

Did exactly the same! Kinda funny to see how the exam writers use these tried and tested methods to get us to step into these obvious traps...

Anyone else ignore the term antibacterial in AC E for Q7 and screw themselves over? Every day I tell myself that I must pay attention to EVERY WORD, and every day I end up here.

There is no import or export, so the surplus coal will have to move over to the next year. That's the only reason why that sentence was added to the stimulus, to help us make this assumption, but I did not think about that until I got the question wrong :(

The point you added about no import or export and why that is relevant in making the assumption that the stockpile carries over into 1991 is very helpful! Thank you!

This may not be helpful to anyone else, but just in case there are others who overthink as I do, another possible alternate sufficient assumption for this question is: 'What is most interesting about Shakespeare is not what is good about life as a man of his time.' (This seems pretty stupid as an assumption, but nonetheless, it is an assumption that makes this a valid argument)

I think the key issue here was to identify the unfair situation as being equivalent to denying customers the rebate on the basis of the early expiration date. For those of us who went a bit further and thought that the unfair situation arises from people having the rebate distributed unevenly (some people get it and others don't), this is a lesson in don't overthink :p

I was struggling to figure out why D was wrong but am realising now that D is attacking the premise and not the support. D is questioning the metaphor of 'reading' a painting that the argument uses as a premise to draw out the conclusion. Even if D is a problematic premise, we are compelled to accept it as it is and attack the support (relationship between the premise and the conclusion). The same logic also applies to the elimination of A. While it may be a meaningful statement, it provides an alternative premise for why the conclusion is false (you are not allowing a viewer to experience the painting without considering time). Both are ultimately irrelevant because the only thing that matters in this question is the leap of assumption made in conflating 'no particular path' in reading a painting to lack of temporal dimension in reading a painting. Whether a painting should or shouldn't be 'read' and whether temporal dimensions should be attributed to a painting is really not up for debate. We have to take the premises at their face value.

Shouldn’t A and B be irrelevant because we’re applying the pesticide to peach trees in those options and the stim is discussing a phenomenon/ hypothesis situation with pear trees? Does JY ignore that intentionally in the video or is that an oversight?

I mean what if we had an option C that applied to peach trees? Would that be the right choice too?

#help

Struggling to understand why A does not weaken the argument. The relevant assumption (which both A and B attack) here is that a person who knows Drew prefers violets will also send Drew violets.

Doesn't A challenge that assumption though by saying most people (regardless of whether or not they know of Drew's preferences) would send Drew roses?

I don't see why A is not a relevant contender for this question, especially because it's actually very similar to B which also attacks the same assumption (Some people may choose to send Drew flowers for reasons other than wanting to please her).

Also, find that there are more things we have to assume for option B to work. Why should we assume that sending flowers that she prefers is equivalent to a desire to please? There's far less that is unclear and subject to assumptive bias about option B than A.

Does anyone know how I can counter this thought process and undermine the strength of option A?

#help

Very uncomfortable with the cavalier use of the term 'bastard' here which is a slur directed at children of single mothers and has misogynistic, classist and racist roots. If you want to make this an inclusive learning space, I would be a little more intentional about things like this