Lesson learned: Not a sufficient cause does not mean that there is no causal factor. There are causal factors that are neither necessary or sufficient.

Does anyone else feel like this is way out of the general "logic of the lsat"? I mean... we're coming into this question with a massive assumption that's far beyond the assumptions made in other questions.

I just do not see how arguing "milk could have other possible positive effects" necessarily makes the argument vulnerable to the argument that "reducing dairy helps maintain good health." If dairy does indeed have positive effects, it does not eliminate the fact that "the probability of avoiding heart disease is increased with less fat intake, and less fat intake could be performed by reducing dairy".... Taking the example in the video, just because there is "calcium, which is good in dairy" doesn't mean that heart disease is suddenly not a possibility if one does not lower dairy intake. The two are mutually exclusive, both can occur, and it seems like we are treating these as an "either/or."

Like, FINE, drink the milk. One is likely to benefit by getting calcium, protein, etc., so eliminating the milk may have negative consequences (a claim based on the assumption there are other causal factors of milk)

BUT does that really challenge the original argument? Dairy = one is likely to consume fat, which can have the possibility of increasing heart disease, which lowers the probability of maintaining good health?

I understand that one could use process of elimination to probably get the answer right, however, I just thought this question was off-putting from all the other lsat questions because the question goes directly against the LSAT's own rules: it makes the largest assumption jump (that there could possibly be other factors without listing or implying this in the paragraph, that such factors in dairy are have good effects, and that these good factors positively impact the maintenance of health in such a way that it eliminates or reduces the risk of heart disease). More importantly, the answer's wording "[dairy's] elimination may have negative consequences" does not challenge the argument itself in any way: what are the negative consequences of removing dairy? maybe loss of protein or calcium. Ok. But does this change the probability of maintaining good health since drinking the same dairy also causes heart disease? (the two are almost like they are exclusive)