A note for the admin. The question 10 answer is highly irresponsible for students and should be removed. Charles is the exception to the rule. As the answer states, and you correctly agree, we cannot validly argue that his charges are false as simply establishing that he's the exception cannot trigger an alternate conclusion without additional information. But your answer should have stopped there; continuing to speculate is counterproductive. The LSAT itself would find your inference invalid and flimsy as Charles could have just as easily thought he was paid to drive the car because Ray wanted to sell it to someone stateside and couldn't transport it himself. YOU are bringing assumptions outside of the stimulus that are irresponsible and confusing to test takers. Please remove this answer and replace it with one focused on how the LSAT would actually treat a stimulus like this

I would like to join too! stuck at 171