I heard from other LSAT tutors that it's "A contributed to C" and not "A caused C" if the relationship is A-->B and B-->C

The last sentence on question 5 threw me off. It doesn't mean the same as the middle condition.

@lizaloug97880 In my opinion, I think that your method is preferred. When we arrive to the Conditional Logic module, a necessary practice taught is that when "negating" something, we should put the word "not" in front of the word, instead of flipping the word to its opposite. This is because you may easily overlook the possibility for things being equal to still be true.

For example:

Chris is taller than melissa.

Negated: Chris is not taller than Melissa. Note: It is not Chris is shorter than Melissa because that would overlook the possibility that they can still be equal in height.

Applying this principle to the explanation, I agree that the tutor's explanation relies on the assumption that the only periods that are not interglacial are glacial. Thus, I believe you are correct.

How come 1B is wrong?