Do you mind sharing what you do instead of mapping? I also don't feel like I have time to draw out all the logic but I don't know how to properly understand the reasoning of the argument or stop myself from missing certain details without it

This q was sooo hard for me -

I chose E bc I thought of it as [likely to have best consequences] -> [undertake action]

It specifically says "likely" to not require full certainty that it does have the best consequences. So I thought it should fit with the premises of the stimulus bc they said:

1. We don't know enough ab the interrelationships of species (ie. we don't know what the unintended consequences of our actions could be)

2. We want to preserve some species

3. Allowing any species to perish could undermine the species we want to preserve

From these premises does it not follow that the course of action that is likely to have the best consequences is (at least attempting to) not allow any species to perish - aka preserve max amount of species ??????

It didn't specifcy whether we are talking about the best consequences for the whole world or if it's the best consequences in this context, so I took it to be an overinclusive rule that, when applied to this context, could mean the best consequences given the value/goal and other facts given in the stimulus. From there, I took it as the course of action likely to have the best consequences could reasonably be preserving the max number of species, so I thought the rule's NC matched the stimulus' conclusion.

Where did I go wrong??? Am I making too many assumptions - I thought I ate thinking of the possibility of an overinclusive conclusion and noticing "likely" in the AC.

I know all the questions on the LSAT have been verified 1000x so I know I'm wrong, but I don't understand how I could reason myself out of choosing the wrong answer in a question like this one. It makes no sense to me so if anyone has a diff explanation I could really use the help

#help for formal argument #6 Two Mosts:

Is it correct to say that if most of A are B, and most of A are C, that (instead of saying most of B are C) some of A are B and C?

I don't know how to comprehend this argument without thinking of it like that. Here's an example I've been using:

Most dogs have leashes.

Most dogs have collars.

Therefore, some dogs have leashes and collars.

But (correct me if I'm wrong) this^ argument in lawgic form would look more like:

Premise: A -m-> B

Premise: A -m-> C

Conclusion: A B and C

Am I just overcomplicating things? Or is my version incorrect?? Idk I'm getting confused if anyone can help me on this.

The sufficient conditions of the rule do not require Celia herself to be a reasonable person when signing her policy.

All the rule requires is:

1. The policy is written in such a way where a reasonable person would not read the document thoroughly before signing it

(This is a general condition - nothing to do with the specific policyholder, only the language of the doc and a criterion of a generic 'reasonable person')

2. The policyholder reasonably expected their policy to cover X damage, even though it is written in the policy that it does not cover X damage - disagreement.

(This is a specific/situational condition - it is met by a fact that exists within the context of an actual policyholder and a specific damage they themselves reasonably expected to be covered by their policy, but policy says otherwise)

Not sure if I'm clearly explaining but do you see how Condition 1 is general, where it is met by a general fact, and Condition 2 is specific, where it is met by a situational fact.

So Condition 1 does not need to be met in a situational context (like you're saying about how we don't know if Celia was a reasonable person when she signed it), just as Condition 2 does not need to be met in a general context (eg. by saying that a 'reasonable person' would expect hail damage to be covered in Celia's policy)

I thought of "legal precedence" as it is used in the stimulus as strictly part of the rule's consequence/conclusion. If [sufficient condition 1] and [sufficient condition 2] are met, then [consequence/decision/conclusion] is true - which is that the expectations of policyholder should take legal precedence over language of policy.

The actual sufficient conditions of the rule have nothing to do with legal precedence, all that matters about it is that that is the procedure the conclusion of the rule lays out if the sufficient conditions are met.

So an answer choice, since it is there to fill in a missing premise/fact in the application of the rule, should not have to include anything about legal precedence since it serves to fulfill a sufficient condition of the rule, not anything regarding the consequence/conclusion/decision.

I visualize these types of questions as a needle threading each claim within the stimulus together. While (A) makes sense, it doesn't tie all of the claims in the stimulus together the way (B) does, it more acts like a suggestion that kinda ignores some of the stimulus. (B) on the other hand interacts with each of the several claims in the stimulus individually. Not sure if this is too abstract to help but I thought I'd offer it

I understand your reasoning but I still got caught up when Dana said "Many children... would therefore learn better through group, rather than individual, activities" so she does mention that using a child's accustomed style of learning will help them learn better. Unless the test is being nitpicky about better vs. best I still don't understand.