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.