I actually thought through this question in a slightly different way, but still got to the same result, so want to share in case this way of viewing it is more helpful for someone else out there! The stimulus says:

Domain: Government Practices

• [First Sentence] /Compelling Reason -> (Might Facilitate Abuse -> /Undertaken)

  • Remember we can just pull out the sufficient condition from the embedded condition to get...

• [First Sentence] /Compelling Reason + Might Facilitate Abuse -> /Undertaken

• [Second Sentence] Keeping of Gov Secrets = Might Facilitate Abuse

• [Fourth Sentence] Conceal Gov Secrets = Might Facilitate Abuse

If we translate (C), it's basically saying...

Domain: Government Practices, but specifically concealing gov secrets

Undertake -> Compelling Reason

This follows from our second bullet above, which the contrapositive is... Undertaken -> Compelling Reason or /Might Facilitate Abuse. We know that specifically concealing government secrets might facilitate abuse, which means it must be that Undertaken -> Compelling Reason specifically for this government practice of concealing government secrets.

This is very similar to PT151.S3.Q18 :)

A better way I went about solving this question that I feel like the video/explanations do not address properly is the following...

AC (C) is saying... Fair = Worked Longer -> Pay More. This means, its unfair if an employee has worked longer but is not paid more.

AC (D) is saying... Fair = /Worked Longer -> /Pay More. That means, its unfair if an employee has not worked longer but is paid more.

Jim would not agree with (C) because he says it is unfair that he's worked longer but is not paid at least as much. Tasha would also not agree with (C) because she doesn't say anything about the unfairness of an employee who has worked longer, only employees that have worked just as long as Jim.

However, both Jim and Tasha would agree with (D), a scenario being unfair if an employee has not worked longer but is paid more than other employees.

Wait how do you find your usage?

@Kevin_Lin This was incredibly helpful & actually makes a lot more sense than the “can” argument. Thank you so much!!!

@Kevin_Lin Is the proper nuance here that it says “can” before either… e.g., had the stimulus not included “can”, then the stimulus would be properly asserting that totalitarianism or anarchy truly were the only two options… I got this question right via POE, but also struggled with this during the test

@Kevin_Lin ahhh!! That is helpful to know and seems to make more sense given that it would be weird for LSAT to talk to itself in the third person — thank you for clarifying and odd for them to include that explanation! I was also confused about why it said it was experimental because 157.s3 showed up as scored when I took it (it was 157.s4, RC, that it had marked as experimental)The explanation

For those confused about this question, I'd implore you to read the official LSAC explanation for the correct AC posted on LawHub:

"Sure the anarchist does this. And, after having good reason to eliminate the remaining answer choices, we have to reluctantly select this one. But we're just going to say it: if this is the correct answer, this is a poorly written question. The anarchist indeed establishes anarchy and totalitarianism as the only available political alternatives. However, the anarchist does this as a premise. On Errors in Reasoning questions, we're supposed to accept the premises as true. We're supposed to analyze why those premises aren't enough to prove that the conclusion or a premise/conclusion is true. Every other Errors in reasoning question plays by this rule, so we're not sure why this question doesn't follow this well-established convention... So the moral of the story is that the people who make the LSAT are human, and sometimes they make mistakes. This question is one of those mistakes. It doesn't surprise us that this question was released as the 'experimental' section of a test. We don't think this question would show up on a real section that counted toward your final score."

In my eyes, the best way to approach this question is to understand the naive assumption that a government cannot prevent an advertisement while it still being illegal. Therefore, we find the AC that dispels this assumption, which is AC (D) saying that the government CAN prevent an advertisement (e.g., via financial disincentives) while it remains legal (e.g., not preventing via legal prohibition).

@MR.Washington I thought the same thing - in my mind, there were a (potentially) better assumption to be made that since he was an actor, he did not have a copy of it because he had memorized his role so well (hence the very accurate rendering).

@steamboatwillie I initially thought this as well, but ultimately eliminated the answer after seeing at the beginning of the question it stressed "One reason why European music has had such a strong influence throughout the world..." - that sentence alone implies that there could be other reasons that explained the global influence of European music (aka strong influence throughout the world).