Don't both B and C satisfy the requirements of a sufficient assumption?

If, as in B, some employees can't determine whether it will engender animosity, then doesn't it make sense that the policy should be that no employees should try to talk that person into buying the product? (Otherwise, if every employee always knew, then the policy would be that it's up to the employee's discretion.)

So, an employee shouldn't try to talk a person who's said that they don't want to buy a product into buying that product because not every employee can tell whether doing so will engender animosity. I assume I'm missing something, but this makes sense to me.

Am I crazy, or is "on a given hypothesis" supposed to be "if a given hypothesis"? I can't understand what the answer choice is supposed to be saying if it's meant to be "on." I assume I'm just reading it wrong, but ???

"inferring that since an event that is taken to be likely on a given hypothesis has not occurred, the hypothesis is probably false"

Maybe I'm just not getting something, but I feel like both B and C could be correct and that A is incorrect. Of course, the LSAT writers are probably ultimately right, but here's my take:

There is an exemption under current law for "those" (people/academics) engaged in private study or research. That means that they are exempt from the law, which means that when they perform an action that would be considered unauthorized for other people, they themselves are authorized to do so. It doesn't say that they are unauthorized but are exempt from punishment; it simply says that they are exempt, which in my interpretation they are exempt from being considered to have broken the law. Because of this, their actions should be considered authorized.

Because A and B both refer to "unauthorized digitalization," they would thus not be referring to those academics, whose digitalization of copyrighted content would be considered authorized. Therefore, A would be incorrect because unauthorized digitalization is just that: unauthorized.

Following this logic, B would be correct because unauthorized = unauthorized = crime. Admittedly, my logic does make both A and B read strangely; why would the sentences even mention private study or research if that stipulation is already baked in to the word "unauthorized"?

(Side note: Does "authorized" mean "directly given explicit permission"? If so, then A would make sense because that would mean that academics would be performing an unauthorized action, but that it won't be considered a crime.)

Finally, I think that C is correct for a completely unrelated reason. Shouldn't "experts" know that digitalization is followed by the re-creation of copies of a work, the criminality of which should also be considered? I would think so. Therefore, by not also proposing the criminalization of the re-creation of copies, but rather only of the digitalization part, it seems to me as if the experts don't think that making copies should be considered a crime. I suppose it is unclear what the experts are experts on—they could be copyright law experts, but not Internet/computer science experts, in which case they may not know about the "making copies" portion of Internet piracy and thus may not think whether or not to recommend it for criminalization. However, since it is not specified what the experts are experts on, I think it is reasonable to assume that they are experts on this particular matter at hand and that they should have considered whether making copies should be criminalized or not. Furthermore, the use of the word "simply" makes it sound as if the experts considered also recommending something else (making copies?) for criminalization, but decided to only recommend criminalizing digitalization.

While I can see how my logic surrounding A and B may be circular and creates some weirdness, I sincerely do not see how C is not a correct answer.

I think I figured it out. "These data" refers to data from radiocarbon dating. The passage states, "These data can show the location and frequency of past earthquakes and provide hints about the likelihood and location of future earthquakes." I thought that E was correct because I thought that studying "future earthquakes" would be an application. However, the techniques involved in radiocarbon dating involve sampling of existing fault lines from past earthquakes. You cannot use techniques to sample fault lines from future earthquakes because the future earthquakes haven't happened yet, and thus the resulting fault lines do not yet exist. The information we gather about the likelihood and location of future earthquakes is not information we gather from applying the techniques directly to those questions, but rather from inferring this information from data that is the result of applying the techniques to the study of past earthquakes.

I think this is incredibly picky, and if C weren't obviously correct, I feel like E could maybe stand as a non-ideal correct answer.

I ruled out C because I thought that all anthropologists would agree that video technology has impacted indigenous people. 🥲 I guess it means that they disagree about what that impact is, not whether it exists. But I feel like that's not clear from the AC.

What is the distinction between a right answer and an ideal answer?

Just because naturally green flowers are extremely rare doesn't mean that it's very difficult for plant breeders to produce green carnations. Are we just meant to ignore that the second support statement follows incorrectly from the first one?? What if green carnations are easier to breed than other green flowers? Also, as someone in the plant breeding world myself, I would love to know what "naturally" means here. Occurring as green in nature without human intervention, or genetically green with or without human intervention (such as plant breeding!!) I thought that E was the correct answer since that statement does not logically follow from the statement that "flowers that are naturally green are extremely rare." Are we meant to just ignore that and latch onto A as the correct answer just because "it is very difficult for plant breeders to produce green carnations" supports it? I guess so.