I chose E too. But I figure that E is wrong, because we really just need to select a plausible reason for the implicit contradiction rather than select a scenario that could serve to explain it away. I make this mistake a lot on these questions. A is right because it addresses the relevant portion of the passage that is called into question, which is the first sentence (the fact).

#feedback put this section immediately next to a complex, logical reasoning test question with a walk through video. This section appears too early in my opinion without an LSAT test question example to apply this in immediately after (or before). Also with a video explanation like in the sections ahead.

I think reiterating why the explanations (such as the formulas and graphs and examples) are correct (like drawing arrows to the formulas and graphs and from the arrows reiterating the explanations that just preceded them piece by piece element by element) would be helpful. Other than that it's all great stuff. Sometimes redundancy is just the right touch. imo.

Question: Why is it that some arguments are stronger than others?

- Some arguments are stronger than others because their strength depends upon the level of their premises' rationality & relevance to the concluding statement.

For instance:

1. Disney is the strongest, because it concludes from the premises out of necessity. In other words, the conclusion can be directly deduced from the premises without further analysis.

2. The Tiger argument is the second strongest, because its conclusion is tied to a credible or plausible premise (soundness) which makes the premise strong enough to infer plausibility about the conclusion. However, unlike the Disney example, the conclusion is not definitive and there may exist examples in which the opposite is also true or accepted (i.e. room for interpretation/opinion).

3. Trash Bin is the weakest, because it's conclusion is merely incidental which means there may be other equally possible explanations. Since the relationship is causal, it is important that the premises of these arguments are as strong as that of Disney's.

This exercise, (from strong - weak) tested our understanding of what makes supporting evidence strong or weak and the respective argument types' desired level of certainty.. This is what accounted for the ordering of these arguments. I like to think of the examples as follows: 1. Factual, 2. Debatable, 3. Speculative.