I assumed that B is wrong because it is more like a sufficient assumption is that correct? There are not really any explanations here.

still don't get why C is wrong. Wouldn't allergic reactions harm some patients and therefore be a reason not to allow prescribing the herbs?

I am so glad someone wrote about this. I struggled for years with ADD and it has ironically made me excel at work where I can multitask so I didn't use the medication but when taking an intense focus test such as the LSAT or just studying in general I have struggled for months. I go to the library to take practice tests and get distracted by someone gulping water - "squirrel?" Why do they charge so much more for accommodations?

Can you please explain the reason D is wrong? I noticed that the author shifted from discussing the theorist's view that "society could flourish" to his view of "an acceptable social philosophy." He never explained this shift; it just seemed like he assumed "flourishing" and "acceptable" were the same.

Did it seem to anyone else that the reason for Kessler being fined didn't meet the conditions either. Kessler was fined last year for returning a children's book late but according to the logic wouldn't he also have had a least 1 non-children's book overdue to be fined at the time?

→I also thought that this argument was distorted. I saw how Arnot said "fundamental changes in government" but the author translated this to mean "government can be trusted to act in the interest of the public." Based on this I thought the author was distorting Arnot's argument since the government as a departmentalized unit is not the same as the people acting within the government. Later I recognized that the author was saying that part of the argument, ie the assumption, was wrong and therefore the entire argument was wrong.