Interested as well! morgancyang@cai19930321867.com

Thank you!

Adding on/clarifying:

I think answer choice B is confusing because the LSAT writers are counting on you confounding the ideas of generality and irrelevance. When you read Sydonie and Stephanie's arguments, you get the sense that Stephanie isn't quite addressing the same issue as Sydonie, and then reading answer choice B tricks you into thinking that it's generality that's the issue (Stephanie says that parents want schools to provide discipline, while Sydonie talks about differing beliefs about discipline, so it does seem to be the case that Stephanie's argument addresses something more general than Sydonie's), when really, it's the irrelevance of Stephanie's argument to Sydonie's argument. Stephanie is trying to make the case that Sydonie's conclusion is incorrect, but she doesn't address Sydonie's point.

It's like if somebody was like: People differ in their food preferences, so this cheesecake is bound to displease some people. And then somebody tried to counter this by saying: That's not true. Everybody likes food.

Both shitty arguments, as you can see.

I initially couldn't figure out why B is not correct either. Using the two-step checking method for flaw questions, I think I figured out why B is wrong. B is incorrect, because while Stephanie is addressing a more general issue than Sydonie is (descriptively accurate: yes), the fact that she's addressing a more general issue is not the flaw (describing the flaw: no).

Take this argument for example:

A: We should drive to school rather than walk, because school starts in 15 minutes, and if we walk, it will take an hour, but if we drive, we can get there in 10 minutes.

B: I disagree. We shouldn't drive to school, because driving is bad for the environment.

You could say that Person B is addressing a more general issue (the environment) than Person A is, but that by itself, is not why the argument is flawed. The argument is flawed because Person B is not countering Person A's argument. Yes, driving is bad for the environment; but Person A's argument that they should drive because otherwise they will be late still holds. To counter Person A's argument, Person B would need to say something like: "We shouldn't drive to school, because driving is bad for the environment, and doing what's best for the environment takes priority over being on time for class." Or something like that.