You could argue that B is wrong because the author of the stimulus did not say that the proponents of the two theories outright excludes the notion of community. It just says that proponents do not consider the author's point of view of what a community actually is. Nowhere does it say they outright reject the notion of community.

I solved the problem conditionally:

PA told everything ---> No reporter knows more than any other ---> Scoop

PA told everything

This means basically nothing. Just because the sufficient condition was failed doesn't mean the necessary condition fails either. That is the flaw with this argument.

lmao I got above a 170 just from 7sage. Without them, I would probably be going to Cooley.

C is a little weird because it points out that if you hold salary equal for two jobs, one job might still have more financial benefits over the other.

I am surprised people chose B. It only says when two jobs are equal, people prefer the job with a higher salary. That does not mean that salary is the most important factor. It is merely one factor. Another way to think about B is that you could say when two identical jobs have the same salary, people prefer the job that has a better work environment. This does not mean work environment is the most important factor.

This question tests you on your ability to read carefully. I ruled out C because I thought the stimulus said it is unlikely as opposed to it seems unlikely.

lol honestly it's not that the logical flaw is hard to catch, it's just that the LSAT writers word some of the stimuluses and the answers so confusingly that it makes it hard.

Anti-Vaxxers just got destroyed lol