I picked (A) because it says:

"Instead, three implicit social norms are operative among chefs, and together these norms function in a manner quite similar to law-based intellectual property systems." And then proceeds to explain the analogy in the subsequent paragraph.

This is why I felt (D), only selecting Trade Secrecy Law, was to narrow because it was only second analogy in the three examples in that last paragraph.

Is it safe to say that in "conclusion" question, the conclusion must be something from the statement or is it ever something inferred?

I think this is a time-sink question, and I'm not sure trying to do mental gymnastics on the logistics here is a good idea. Is it safe to say that in a weakening questions like this with the "if true" in the stimulus, whichever AC directly attacks the conclusion would be the right answer?

It was between AC (A) and AC (E) for me. I had an inkling that (A) sounded correct, however I was not sure of the rule. I realize now that AC (E) is incorrect because is there is another factor causing both HD and Drinking Caffeine and Smoking, that would actually be goofd for the author because they would be positively correlated (notice the conclusion is not saying anything about causation).

TIP: If (A + B) is less correlated to C than (A + ~B), then that means B has a negative correlation to C.

Fot this one, I knew that because of the "or" in the conclusion, it eliminated AC (A), (B), and (C) for me. I chose (E) thinking it was (D), but I actually got the contrapositives wrong. Putting a contrapositive on AC (D), we get:

~less harmful --> either (not lagalize) or (do not make illegal)

The necessary condition here is exactly like the conclusion.

TIP: For complicated contrapositives, it might be best to actually draw it out.

This question basically depended on us stereotyping people's diet by race lol... so if there's was a question that had something about burgers being bad for health, we can assume that us Americans would be in poorer health simply by being American?

Triple negative got me...lolz

"Much" lol

Is it me, or is the "contact support" function not working?

Does "general conclusion" always mean "main conclusion" in the LSAT?

Is the flaw here that in actuality someone/some people can believe two things that contradict each other?

Why is (E) correct if it's possible that they were "not aware" of they fact that they were portraying themselves as they wished to be perceived? How can they "wish" something if they were "not aware" of it?

To be honest, if AC (B) started with "It is..." instead of "It mentions...", I would have picked it. I couldn't conceptualize how a statement could "mention" itself...

I've never heard Divinely Inspired to be used in a non-religious context... what is this question, and are there other questions like this where the equivocation is between two uses of words/phrases that are not the same?

I picked "B", which is the same as the correct answer "E", except it didn't use the word "Common."

Well, if it wasn't so common, why did you even bring it up, narrator!?

This question confused me because the Greenhouse effect was also discussed in the first paragraph...

So "Contention" means "Conclusion"? I thought when they said Contention it meant "conclusion against" lol