Flaw Question-- calling all folks who are a beast at LR:) HELP?

I understand that the answer is C but I want to make sure that I'm breaking down the argument correctly:

*Best way to understand --> Direct Empathy (that's what some psychologists claim, and we're supposing they're right)

*/Direct Empathy ("since it's impossible to gain a direct and complete grasp of another person's motivations" aka Direct Empathy-- I believe this is what the author takes as the truth)

THUS, no way at all to understand (already problem here, it should have been THUS, "no best way to understand" rather than "no way at all to understand")

But that's not even the main conclusion...

*Understand ("One can understand other people"-- again, this is what the author takes as the truth)

THUS, the psychologists' claim is wrong-- it's wrong to state that (best way to understand --> Direct Empathy)

The problem is that the author cannot state that the psychologists' claim is wrong because the author's evidence is flawed--- assumes there's no way when the psychologists are only talking about best way.

However, I'd like to go deeper into this question and modify it-- what if the author correctly said it was "best way to understand" as opposed to "no way at all to understand"-- would the argument be valid then??

*Best way to understand --> Direct Empathy (that's what some psychologists claim, and we're supposing they're right)

*/Direct Empathy ("since it's impossible to gain a direct and complete grasp of another person's motivations" aka Direct Empathy-- I believe this is what the author takes as the truth)

THUS, there's no best way to understand

*Best way to understand (my modified premise-- "But there is a best way to understand people")

THUS, the psychologists' claim is wrong-- it's wrong to state that (best way to understand -> Direct Empathy)

In this case, is the argument's conclusion valid? It's TRUE that the psychologists' claim is wrong because ultimately what we have is... we know it's true that /Direct Empathy & there is best way to understand ... so we can't validly get to "Best way to understand --> Direct Empathy"

(Am I thinking correctly? lol)

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-34-section-2-question-11/

I was wondering if anyone has heard of Nathan Fox's tutoring? I've heard mixed reviews about the on-site classes. I'm currently debating between signing up for the on-site classes with him and signing up for Ultimate+ with 7Sage. I do work full-time so I'm not sure how much I trust myself to go with online classes-- if I go with Fox I know that I'll have to at least sit there on the weekends. Any Bay area folks have any more insight on this? Any resources you all have used or are using? (Are there any study groups currently for folks in SF?)

Appreciate any input! :)

I was wondering if anyone has encountered a similar LG to PT34.S4.G2? It's the game that talks about different lectures/ speakers/ philosophers... The wording of that game really threw me off the first time. I wanted to get practice with other confusingly worded questions like that one.

Would appreciate any help team!

I got the MP but I wanted to further analyze... Could someone review my thought process please? (This is a question in CC!)

Part of the stimulus: "But there is a positive role to be played even by these extremists for the social &political inertia that attends environmental issues is so stubborn that even small areas of progress can be made only if the populace fears environmental disaster..."

Does "only if" introduce necessary condition? Thus would the diagram be the following: Small areas of progress can be made --> populace fears environmental disaster (or the other way around...?)

Since it's a conditional statement, it's wrong for A to assert that "little progress that HAS BEEN MADE in improving the environment is mainly due to the fear created by radical environmentalists." We don't know in the stimulus if the progress has actually been made-- it just gives us a conditional. Is it safe to say that (A) requires you to assume something that we have no basis or support for?

Someone had commented, "(For the sake of practice) Notice the gap in the argument – author assumes that the radical environmentalists incite fear in the populace through false extremes (possibly about unlikely environmental disasters) and thereby, allows the possibility for small progress to occur (this is the positive role)." Is this correct? Could someone shed more light into this gap in the argument/ any other flaws?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-34-section-2-question-18/