I chose C because I conflated bloodstream with oxygenated blood. So, I thought that C contradicted the hypothesis about the spleen holding extra blood. Looking back, even with this logic, B is more accurate.

I'm having trouble understanding why E is wrong, and I don't think the video does a good job presenting why it's wrong. The conclusion is that pain protocols are unnecessary for humans. Unalleviated pain would make it not unnecessary because there is a purpose to having the protocol: to prevent pain after the surgery. Also, the language of the D makes me feel that that argument is more flimsy. Taken at face value, "some" babies does not provide enough context to know if this can "seriously" weaken the argument compared to E. I'm obviously wrong but still

B leaves open the possibility that unenforceable laws are effective (in addition to enforceable laws being effective).

When I chose d, I thought I was highlighting how considerable and sufficient were not the same thing.

I have a strategy for determining the conclusion. I pretend that I am a journalist and my strict editor is forcing me to reduce the length of my story (lsat excerpt) to one sentence by eliminating the other sentences. By shrinking the excerpt down the excerpt to its most important sentence/phrase, it pretty consistently lands me on the conclusion.