I have to agree that for most of my LSAT training I have been asking myself, "What?"

@LydiannaTrudel stimulus is healthy bones --> has sufficient calcium, therefore /healthy bones --> /sufficient calcium. this is flawed because it's confusing necessary and sufficient. (b) makes the same mistake; cake tastes good --> has the right amount of flour, therefore /tastes good --> /right amount of flour. (a) does not have this mistake. firm crust --> right temperature, therefore /right temp --> /firm crust. (a) doesn't have any mistakes, the logic is valid

todd barry fan getting sushi at the cincinnati airport

Writing this for my own benefit, but the mistake in intuition I made was thinking necessary assumptions should be making the conclusion incorrect, but they're making the argument incorrect. C) does not make the idea "any gardening book that does not explain the basics is flawed" impossible, since there could be some other basic. But it does make the argument incorrect, since there's no basis in the premises for the conclusion.

@AshlynMiller you get scratch paper with the LSAT

I was confused by C, which looked wrong to me. "Low costs" are not supported by the text, "lower rates" are supported. What if broadcast networks offer really high rates, but cable networks offer lower but still high costs?

ice cream causes drownings because you're supposed to wait to go swimming after you eat

I'm imagining a sentence like "the majority of people believe x, but the overwhelming majority believe y." Is it reasonable to assume people who believe y is greater than people believe x?

@HenryLehmann You'd say "Jane is a faster runner than Mary or Jon," and I don't think anyone would reasonably interpret that as them running combined. I think it's just a quirk of the language that you have to know.