@PowerUp_Tutoring "the source" ≠ "mother"

Hello there, I realize that this post is from a bit ago, but just wanted to mention I am open to joining if this is still on going. Thank you!

Some commenters have mentioned that 'many' can be read as 'some'. The case in which that is not true is if anyone were to read 'many' as 'at least one,' when there only was one thing or event being referred to. So 'many' can imply 'some' but logically it means 'more than one,' rather than 'at least one'.

Maybe on JY's explanation for C, the whole restaurant industry could be the thing that the L, J, and M on their own wouldn't like (for the 2nd interpretation flaw).

@LSATgoat it says 'minor' -- how can that contribute to great differences?

 In a way, the stimulus is also about recognizing the comparative relativity of a quality that people have (happiness). Where the argument goes wrong concerns how the conclusion should not make a generalization that goes beyond the 'scope' of the fact that this happiness quality is relative. 

Sure, there was a different causal factor, but that factor was the assumption that pet owners have this predisposition to be less happy. So really, it seems we are recognizing these generalizations about claims regarding qualities that can be relative in the populations being referred to. (E.g. the pet-owners are more happy “relative” to their baseline, and pet-free folks are happier than them.)

(E) is tricky because it is saying Danto Foods would cover up their own negative reports if there was evidence that their own food was unhealthy. It seems to imply that Danto is specifically biased against Ocksenfry. It leaves open that, if there were evidence against Danto, in such a case, Danto wouldn't publish it. That is, (E) says that Danto would not publish their own negative nutritional facts.

If it is presumed that Danto could be honestly publishing reports against their corporate rival about their non-nutritious food, even from their PR department, then (E) looks more plausible.

The conclusion is far too strong for the premises, but I thought the author's mistake was that Danto could, in fact, be publishing mostly true information, and so, there was a tacit assumption that Danto won't publish the same negative facts about themselves.

Did I go wrong assuming the premises were false, or read too much into the stimulus? Maybe I didn't read (A) closely enough.

I'm interested too...

This is so motivating!