I'm going to miss Mr. Fat Cat when I finally take the LSAT

this one hurt

I literally hate this question like so much. All of the answer choices (to me, at least) jumble together and I have a hard time telling what's up and what's down. Marty's when I find you.... Anyways, I notice on a lot of sufficient assumption questions that my brain "fills" the right answer in, because they're often not an "obvious" logical gap but something that I would infer/naturally understand at if the same topic was being discussed in a conversation. In this problem, my brain naturally assumes that purposefully going out of your way not to accept something that benefits you is motivated by the desire to hurt the other party. Before I started doing this, it was easy for me to miss these type of questions out of a sort of "not considering the obvious" thing.

smh at this question

Very helpful, thank you!

so happy to see Mr. Fat Cat again!!!

shoutout to my critical lit class for making us read The Awakening

When I saw the wording "vindicated" in answer choice E, this seemed to me to imply that there was a previous challenge/argument against the value of the technique, therefore requiring the passage to support the beliefs of the lawyers. However, since this alternative viewpoint/challenge to the belief of stealing thunder was never established, the wording "vindicated" in the answer choice indicated to me that E was incorrect. "Vindicated" is a very strong word which is why it caught my attention (and raised red flags) initially while I was answering the questions.

@RazanTadros Thanks! Very helpful.

@LaurenJ24 Good explanation, thank you! :)

@ygcastro Thank you for the explanation! I was wondering the same thing as I was reading