Hey there,

I know this is a super old request, but I figure I'd put in my two cents for future generations to find.

I actually went with A when I took this test timed. At the time I was between A and C. I went with A because it seemed to me that based on the premises it was possible for all cats to secrete the same proteins and for allergic reactions to depend on what the person was actually allergic to. The phrase the OP mentioned, "which particular proteins are responsible, however, varies from allergy sufferer to allergy sufferer," seemed to support this for me.

When I went back over this question (this AM) I realized that the first sentence is conditional. The possible worlds this stimulus is discussing are specifically those within which a person is allergic to cats. And so A is too broad.

B, for this reason, is also too broad. "All types of allergy sufferers"? So like, people with Celiac too? On top of that B only says that it is common for a cat to cause a reaction in some but not others but that all cats are capable of causing reactions. From that it follows that there is a known universe somewhere where in a cat can cause allergic reactions in everyone allergic to cats.

D is not supported anywhere because we never discuss types of reactions

E is unsupported because the stimulus seems to directly contradict it. Would we know that responsible proteins vary for sufferer to sufferer if it was impossible to predict or test for?

Finally C, the correct answer--which I still didn't get right on Blind Review. I could not for the life of me find anything in the stimulus that supported this statement. And while timed, if I had eliminated all the other answer choices, I would just go with what's left, I still wanted to figure out why this statement was supported. I mean I was pretty annoyed by this point. Enter Powerscore (they are not a perfect resource, but some of what they say is actually super helpful).

Here's a link to the explanation that finally made it click for me: https://forum.powerscore.com/lsat/viewtopic.php?t=18056

The answer? If all cats secreted the same proteins, all cat allergy sufferers would be allergic to all cats. That seems untrue on the face of it, right? Fortunately, the poster provided an example that made it pretty clear.

Let's say all cats secreted X and Y. If different people were allergic to different proteins, every person allergic to cats would still be allergic to every cat. Because they're allergic to either X or Y. And every cat has both.

Yeah. Absolutely maddening isn't it?

@ said:

@ said:

@ said:

I do not write out conditional logic during LR questions. I think that saves time for me. However, I think not writing the whole thing out came due to practice. How I go about identifying quickly is to have a clear idea of the argument structure. What are the premises and what is the conclusion, what information is context etc. This helps enormously for SA questions because I feel like almost all SA questions are predictable. One needs to be careful about contrapositive answer choices.

Both NA and SA questions have a gap. With SA questions the answer choice closes this gap. For example, in this question, the gap is in between prime purchasers of software and the software being successful, so we have to find an answer choice that bridges it.

For NA questions, although sometimes the answers are predictable, sometimes it is hard to find the necessary assumption they are going for.

Necessary assumptions needn't quite close the gap but involve in finding one premise that if it doesn't hold true, wrecks the argument.

Say for example : Johnny goes to the park when it doesn't rain. Johnny went to the park.

Sufficient : it did not rain.

Necessary: Johnny was alive and/or the park wasn't destroyed in an apocalypse (because if Johnny was dead or if the park was non existent, there wouldn't be going to the park and hence it is necessary for the argument).

Hi @

Thanks for your response! It's funny, I was just going over NA questions when I decided to check to see if anyone had responded to this (thanks to the admin for linking the question's explanation as well! I'll give that a listen today!). I understand exactly what you're saying! And that's generally the feeling I have about SA questions as well! It's precisely the feeling I had for this question, in fact. I guess to ask my question more clearly:

I'm at the end of an LR section. The question is an SA one--fabulous. Based on my reading of the stimulus, I know what the conclusion and the support/premises are. I know where the gap is. It's between success and this group buying the software. I guess my problem is this: When I eliminated everything unrelated to these two elements, I was left with A and C. Ignoring the "most" in option A, the only way to distinguish between these two answers is to realize that they're reversals of each other. One has success as the sufficient condition, and one has it as the necessary (which as you suggest, you can realize without writing a thing down). My question is about the next step. Knowing which version of this conditional statement I need for my answer. Does that make more sense? Sorry if I wasn't clear before.

The weird explanation I found wasn't in great English, so it was hard for me to decipher and I'm still not sure if what I gleaned from it is what was intended. However, that person said that the sufficient condition in the conclusion (if you break the conclusion down into logic) should be the sufficient condition in your answer when you are in this sort of situation. If that's the case, then I can look at answers A and C, see that they both have the elements I need, check the conclusion, see that its sufficient condition is success, and test my remaining answer choices to for the same. All without writing any thing down. It's a seductive option, but I'm not sure it's logically sound, which is why I wanted to check here.

Yes, that is a reliable way to determine the precise connection you need. Think about why it makes sense:

Premise: A -> B

Conclusion A -> C

The missing link is B -> C. Notice that C is a new term on the necessary side of the conclusion - that means the assumption also needs to be put C on the necessary side. Why doesn't it work if we add C -> B? Because in that case, even though All As are B, and All Cs are B, that doesn't guarantee that every A is a C - some As might be the kind of B that isn't a C.

Premise: G -> D

Conclusion: X -> D

The missing link is X -> G. X is the new term and it's on the sufficient side, so the assumption must put X on the sufficient side. Why doesn't it work if we plugged in G -> X. Because in that case, even though All Gs are D and All Gs are X, there would be plenty of Xs that aren't Ds.

You literally made my night with this. You didn't just tell me that the logic was sound, you showed me so that I could see it myself (which is exactly the sort of thing I need to see to really get something).

THANK YOU YOU MARVELOUS PERSON YOU.

@ said:

I do not write out conditional logic during LR questions. I think that saves time for me. However, I think not writing the whole thing out came due to practice. How I go about identifying quickly is to have a clear idea of the argument structure. What are the premises and what is the conclusion, what information is context etc. This helps enormously for SA questions because I feel like almost all SA questions are predictable. One needs to be careful about contrapositive answer choices.

Both NA and SA questions have a gap. With SA questions the answer choice closes this gap. For example, in this question, the gap is in between prime purchasers of software and the software being successful, so we have to find an answer choice that bridges it.

For NA questions, although sometimes the answers are predictable, sometimes it is hard to find the necessary assumption they are going for.

Necessary assumptions needn't quite close the gap but involve in finding one premise that if it doesn't hold true, wrecks the argument.

Say for example : Johnny goes to the park when it doesn't rain. Johnny went to the park.

Sufficient : it did not rain.

Necessary: Johnny was alive and/or the park wasn't destroyed in an apocalypse (because if Johnny was dead or if the park was non existent, there wouldn't be going to the park and hence it is necessary for the argument).

Hi @

Thanks for your response! It's funny, I was just going over NA questions when I decided to check to see if anyone had responded to this (thanks to the admin for linking the question's explanation as well! I'll give that a listen today!). I understand exactly what you're saying! And that's generally the feeling I have about SA questions as well! It's precisely the feeling I had for this question, in fact. I guess to ask my question more clearly:

I'm at the end of an LR section. The question is an SA one--fabulous. Based on my reading of the stimulus, I know what the conclusion and the support/premises are. I know where the gap is. It's between success and this group buying the software. I guess my problem is this: When I eliminated everything unrelated to these two elements, I was left with A and C. Ignoring the "most" in option A, the only way to distinguish between these two answers is to realize that they're reversals of each other. One has success as the sufficient condition, and one has it as the necessary (which as you suggest, you can realize without writing a thing down). My question is about the next step. Knowing which version of this conditional statement I need for my answer. Does that make more sense? Sorry if I wasn't clear before.

The weird explanation I found wasn't in great English, so it was hard for me to decipher and I'm still not sure if what I gleaned from it is what was intended. However, that person said that the sufficient condition in the conclusion (if you break the conclusion down into logic) should be the sufficient condition in your answer when you are in this sort of situation. If that's the case, then I can look at answers A and C, see that they both have the elements I need, check the conclusion, see that its sufficient condition is success, and test my remaining answer choices to for the same. All without writing any thing down. It's a seductive option, but I'm not sure it's logically sound, which is why I wanted to check here.

#help Sorry, this question just doesn't make sense to me. I've looked just about everywhere there are explanations and none of them seem compelling. I don't understand how something being successful = crit of that thing being misguided. If we're going to introduce the random element of success, which to me has no real connection to the idea of whether something can/should be criticized, the word "should" hardly seems like an issue. C makes more sense to me frankly. If comedies should do this thing then criticism of this thing doesn't make sense anymore. But genre success meaning general success seems wholly unconnected to the idea of warranted criticism.

I'm utterly baffled.

@ said:

IMO, NA don't have any direct relationship with the flaw. It may or may not fix it, or even need to address it.

It's good to have an idea of what the flaw is, but recognizing the flaw is not the same thing as prephrasing a flaw. Definitely don't pre-phrase, or if you do, don't put too much weight into that prephrase. Especially for trickier questions, the trap answer is usually what you're prephrasing, except with one word changed. If you want to be 170+, don't prephrase NA, and just focus on the "gap" or flaw.

Ok, so I said NA's don't have anything to direct relationship with the flaw, yet I focus on finding the flaw. Why? Here's my approach - first, I see if something must be true, as if it were a MBT question. Then, I negate the answer choices that I didn't eliminate to see if any of the negated answer choices "illustrates" the flaw. This is because, when negated, a NA should "become" the flaw. That's the definition of a NA, right? It means that, without it, the argument would be flawed, So although NA has no direct relationship with the flaw, once it is negated, it IS the flaw (or at least, one of many). This is demonstrated by the example in @ 's comment.

So knowing the flaw is key for NA, because the negation of an NA "is" the flaw. So I hope this helps you see why knowing the flaw is so important.

So this is interesting. I think this way of thinking will be super helpful for trickier NA questions. For the easier questions, looking for the answer that blocks the assumption I've found/ what I've found the argument takes for granted seems to be working. But thinking of it this way makes things a little clearer, connecting some of the elements about NA that I've known but haven't yet been able to integrate into a comprehensive approach.

If I understand you correctly, when the correct answer choice is negated it should reflect the flaw I've found (even if it isn't an exact phrasing of said flaw). Is that right?

Could you tell me a little bit more about what you believe prephrasing a flaw is vs. recognizing? I think making that distinction would be helpful.

I think eliminating extra answer choices uses the MBT method will be helpful as well, so thank you for the reminder!

@ This is actually uncanny. I literally just had this realization a moment ago. As I was reviewing a recent take, I noticed a certain type of error I was making on grouping games, and that led me to realize that instead of just noting the possible distributions down, I should connect them to specific groups (by writing them near the group name). Usually there is at least one group that is super limited or has to have just two or one, or whatever it is. And that serves as an anchor.

Thank you so much for responding! This gave me a HUGE confidence boost!

@ said:

@ said:

The necessary assumption TAKES CARE of the flaw in the reasoning. So let's say that our argument is this. Rattlesnakes grow sections on their tales each time they molt. Therefore, I can know the age of a rattlesnake by counting its sections.

What's the flaw here? Well, we're assuming that rattlesnakes molt at an even pace. But this might not be the case. It could be the case that rattlesnakes molting patterns are extremely variable. If that's true, then we can by no means count the age of a rattlesnake just by counting its sections.

If this argument is valid, then it must be the case that that flaw isn't happening. That is, it must be the case that rattlesnakes' molting patterns are NOT variable. That's the necessary assumption. On this particular question, the correct answer is: rattlesnakes molt as often when food is scarce as they do when food is plentiful. Or, in other words, rattlesnakes do not vary their molting patterns according to food scarcity.

Note that this isn't a sufficient assumption. Knowing this does not allow us to conclude that we can know the age of a rattlesnake by counting its sections, because it could still be the case that rattlesnakes vary their molting patterns according to something else, like weather. That being said, it's a necessary assumption. It must be correct if the argument is valid. We know this because if we negate it, then we get: rattlesnakes vary their molting patterns according to food scarcity. If that's true, then the conclusion is destroyed.

To sum, necessary assumptions most definitely have to do with flaws in reasoning. If you know what's wrong with an argument (the flaw), and you're asked to find the necessary assumption, then a correct answer would be one that blocks that flaw from happening. The flaw must not be happening if the argument is valid. That is a necessary consequence of an argument being valid, that a particular flaw isn't happening, and that's why we call those necessary assumptions.

I'm trying to find out a way to star your post. Honor on you, honor on your house, honor on your cow. I knew there had to be a way to leverage the my flaw finding skills from the trainer with this question type. I just couldn't figure out what it was.

Have you read the trainer? Can I ask you more questions?

For posterity:

An NA, as you learn in the 7sage CC is an assumption that must be true if the argument has a chance at being valid. You need to find out what the author was thinking, but didin't say. The easiest way, in my opinion, to do this is to find the conclusion, find the premises, and then ask yourself what the author is taking for granted/failing to consider. The answer to that question is an assumption. From there--as per @ 's brilliant deductions--you look for the answer that blocks this flaw; either by literally blocking it, or by lightly bridging the elements in the flaw to the rest of the argument. This is why NAs are so often mistaken with SAs. Both take care of the argument. The key is to realizing the different ways in which they do so. SA questions allow the conclusion to be drawn. The NA often does not as there are many, many NAs

Quick Note:

I am still interested in learning about how to let the answers guide you, because I'm aware that on trickier NA questions, the flaw you find likely won't be the one they utilize. And so having a plan 2 for when my prephrase isn't in the answer choices is key to my breaking 170 on test day.

@ said:

The necessary assumption TAKES CARE of the flaw in the reasoning. So let's say that our argument is this. Rattlesnakes grow sections on their tales each time they molt. Therefore, I can know the age of a rattlesnake by counting its sections.

What's the flaw here? Well, we're assuming that rattlesnakes molt at an even pace. But this might not be the case. It could be the case that rattlesnakes molting patterns are extremely variable. If that's true, then we can by no means count the age of a rattlesnake just by counting its sections.

If this argument is valid, then it must be the case that that flaw isn't happening. That is, it must be the case that rattlesnakes' molting patterns are NOT variable. That's the necessary assumption. On this particular question, the correct answer is: rattlesnakes molt as often when food is scarce as they do when food is plentiful. Or, in other words, rattlesnakes do not vary their molting patterns according to food scarcity.

Note that this isn't a sufficient assumption. Knowing this does not allow us to conclude that we can know the age of a rattlesnake by counting its sections, because it could still be the case that rattlesnakes vary their molting patterns according to something else, like weather. That being said, it's a necessary assumption. It must be correct if the argument is valid. We know this because if we negate it, then we get: rattlesnakes vary their molting patterns according to food scarcity. If that's true, then the conclusion is destroyed.

To sum, necessary assumptions most definitely have to do with flaws in reasoning. If you know what's wrong with an argument (the flaw), and you're asked to find the necessary assumption, then a correct answer would be one that blocks that flaw from happening. The flaw must not be happening if the argument is valid. That is a necessary consequence of an argument being valid, that a particular flaw isn't happening, and that's why we call those necessary assumptions.

I'm trying to find out a way to star your post. Honor on you, honor on your house, honor on your cow. I knew there had to be a way to leverage the my flaw finding skills from the trainer with this question type. I just couldn't figure out what it was.

Have you read the trainer? Can I ask you more questions?

For posterity:

An NA, as you learn in the 7sage CC is an assumption that must be true if the argument has a chance at being valid. You need to find out what the author was thinking, but didin't say. The easiest way, in my opinion, to do this is to find the conclusion, find the premises, and then ask yourself what the author is taking for granted/failing to consider. The answer to that question is an assumption. From there--as per @ 's brilliant deductions--you look for the answer that blocks this flaw; either by literally blocking it, or by lightly bridging the elements in the flaw to the rest of the argument. This is why NAs are so often mistaken with SAs. Both take care of the argument. The key is to realizing the different ways in which they do so. SA questions allow the conclusion to be drawn. The NA often does not as there are many, many NAs

I am still interested in learning about how to let the answers guide you, because I'm aware that on trickier NA questions, the flaw you find likely won't be the one they utilize. And so having a plan 2 for when my prephrase isn't in the answer choices is key to my breaking 170 on test day.

@ said:

@ You should definitely prephrase NA questions. The assumptions are easy to figure out if you pay attention to the arguments reasoning.

I wholeheartedly agree. I'm actually really good at figuring out assumptions--thanks to the trainer (credit where credit is due!). That's why I'm so good at flaw questions. I'm really good at SA questions because I know what I'm supposed to do with the flaw once I've found it (or what the correct AC is supposed to do to the flaw I find)

@ said:

@ said:

Hi there!

So I'm still trying to answer this question and could use some help! Lots of different sources, including 7sager and the Trainer, suggest I find the flaw in the argument if I can, before considering answer choices. The question I've never been able to answer is this: Why? What does a correct answer choice in an NA question do to that flaw? With SA questions, the correct answer choice makes the flaw disappear. But with an NA, I don't have an answer. Any help would be amazing! I'm taking the Jan Lsat next week and I'm trying to tie up loose ends.

Hi there!

So with NA if you can find the flaw, you can see where an assumption was made. Assuming/overlooking something is a flaw!

As @ said above, knowing this can give you an idea of what you’re looking for.

Although, I disagree that you shouldn’t be prephrasing on NA questions. Some are really amenable to prephrasing. I can actually prephrase for most NA questions. However, there definitely are some that are super tricky and hard to see. Because I’ve trained myself to preprephrase I’m more aware when I come across these and then I’ll let the answer choices guide me. It’s just always important to make sure you understand the argument to such a degree that you’ll know the correct answer when you see it.

But I think to just always let the answer choices guide you would be a mistake. For one, if you have a prephrase you can go into “hunt mode” and find the answer with more confidence/less time. Second, the test writers are very good at making trap answers sound correct. So anytime you’re letting the answer choices guide you, you’re taking on that additional risk.

Hope this helps!

Ooooh. I love an integrated approach. Thank you for the heads up! I'll try to integrate once I understand @ and @'s approach better :)

@ said:

For NA questions, you shouldn't be pre-phrasing because NAs can be virtually infinite. In general, it is useful to understand the flaws in an argument because they can give you an idea of what to look for in the answer choices. But this process is often misleading and can be a major time sink. I would recommend that you allow the answer choices guide you through for NA questions. With practice, the correct NA will pop out to you when you read it.

Hey!

Thanks for stopping by! This is actually something I just heard for the first time yesterday! I'm actually really curious about how it works so I'd love it if you could explain your process? Maybe tell me some of the key triggers you see that make you go, "Ah-hah!"

@ Hey there! Thanks for getting back to us! I'd love it if you could elaborate on this process! Maybe with an example questions?

Thank you!

Did @ ever get back to you on this? I'd love an answer too!

How do I know when I'm looking for an answer that strengthens the relationship between the premises and the conclusion, and when I'm looking for an answer/it's okay to pick an answer that strengthens the conclusion directly?

#help

Also, I feel like without having at least basic knowledge of supply and demand and related issues, this problem is impossible. Can someone show me how to POE or get to the right answer without referring to outside knowledge?

Hey there! So my first thought when I read this was, "Oh, assuming a causation relationship when all we have is a correlation." That isn't wrong, so how do I go from that realization to seeing that E is right?

#help

So I'm not sure I follow on #21. I honestly picked B because nothing else worked in the slightest. I was kind of (read: very) annoyed I couldn't figure out what would make B right, if it was. From my initial read I understand that H2 is persona non grata re the author. But, I don't know that I can say the author really supports H1 or says that it is an accurate explanation/the answer to the mirror issue (especially since the author mentions that H2 is correct to a point). At the most, I feel comfortable saying that because H1 seems to meet both criteria mentioned in the concluding paragraph, it at least has some necessary conditions met. But as we all know. It's not necessarily enough to meet necessary conditions.

So what am I missing?

#help

Hahah, I understood everything in this passage and bombed it T.T

Subject knowledge really doesn't help!

So I approached this requiring too high a level of proof. I think because I took it to be a PSA question. How would I figure out/intuit mid game that this is more of an MSS type deal?

#help

Why is this categorized as a PSA question?

#help

#help Are there videos of people going through passages and adding low resolutions summaries? I was hoping to see what that would look like in real time (or in a JY vid)

@ said:

I have noticed a pattern in some correct answer choices. They are the opposite of what was stated. For example, (and this is an easy made up example to clarify what I am saying) if the author of the passage says they are taller than x, the right infer question would say x is shorter than the author.

There is an example of this in the RC core curriculum about Okapis (PT 30, Sec. 3, Pass. 1).

Ooooh, this is an interesting insight! I'll keep an eye out and report back!

@ said:

@ said:

When I started my LSAT journey, RC was the section I was least concerned about. I finished all the passages, and would get maybe -5. It was something I could see improving with time. Then I did a prep program (Powerscore tutoring for anyone who's curious) and now, I'm only getting to 3 passages. More troubling is the fact that I seem to be having trouble with questions that ask me to infer or guess how the author would feel about something. How do I overcome that? Anyone else have trouble with these sorts of questions? What helped? Any tactics/and or strategies would be really appreciated!

I think a potential problem with the powerscore viewstamp method is that it asks you to do a lot of work upfront that may not be tested on that passage. Like maybe there isn't a purpose question and you are trying to find the purpose of the passage. Maybe there isn't tone and you are trying to find tone. So, that maybe a reason why you are missing out on time.

I agree with skhan01 that there needs to be hard evidence, but what helps narrow down these answer choices is knowing where things are mentioned in the passage so you could quickly refer to it. Also, knowing what is completely off base and things the author totally doesn't discuss about go for a quick elimination. However,an approach where you compare each answer choice with what could be in the passage is extremely time taking and not advisable. Very lengthy and time consuming. This is the key of 7sage approach which asks you to do Low res summaries so you have a quick index of the passage in case you need to refer back to understand what the author is inferring.

In my prep, I've come to understand that doing RC under time also requires some confidence wherein I must be ready to move on when I don't understand a particular phrasing (there is a good chance that one tiny phrase won't be tested, you could come back to it when you are tested on it, maybe the answer choices will be so whacky you can eliminate them easily.) or when I have only 60% confidence that the answer is right but if given a minute I could clarify it by reading through the passage.

Thank you so much! Yeah, After reading most of the LSAT trainer, I came to a similar conclusion. And reading the trainer gave me a better perspective of the 7 sage method (which had been taking me too much time as well). Now I'm using a combination of the two to great effect! I'm still struggling on those infer questions, but at least I'm finishing the section (or just about)!

I think having confidence while reading is actually a really good point, and may be something that's holding me back. I'll try to emulate that on my next read and see how it goes!

@ said:

Hi- So what I did is I quickly jotted down the flawed logic of the argument. Then I go to existential vs universal quantifiers. For example, the argument contains no 'some' or 'many' existential quantifies, so I take out any AC that has them. Then I look for the negative language (NO one bedroom have fireplaces), which got me down to C and E. I quickly checked C and realized it was right and moved on. Hopefully that helps. Paralleling the language is key before writing everything down or attempting to.

Oh wow. This is brilliant. I did the first step and got rid of B, but the next step of matching the conclusions is pure gold. I think part of me was afraid that the answer could be a contrapositive of what I was looking for and so I didn't want to be too aggressive in my eliminations. But logic wise, that makes no sense as there would still need to be a not (something) in there. And even if I hadn't realized this in the adrenaline rush, that's frankly the kind of problem I should tackle if I get to it. Like if I eliminate everything.

Thanks!

@ said:

Hi! Its good to ask questions and get clarification- don't worry about how much you are posting, we are all in the same boat:)

So let's recap the question. We know this is a NA question.

The core of the stimulus is:

Caronian speakers live in several widely scattered area that cannot be united within a single continuous boundary while at the same time slowing caronian speakers to be the majority population.

Therefore: the recommendation cannot be satisfied.

With NA, what I like to do is to always be critical of the argument. The conclusion is the recommendation (to make them an independent nation in which Caronian-speakers would be the majority) cannot be satisfied. Why? Because they are widely scattered and cannot form a continuous boundary.

This question is playing on the assumption that nations cannot be widely scattered, i.e. that they have to be in one continuous boundary in order to be a nation. What if we didn't need all the speakers to be all together, they could be scattered and still form a country? Then the premise would be must less supportive of our conclusion, and our argument would be gone.

When looking at C and D:

C: negate this: The recommendation would be satisfied if the nation had disconnected regions. Yes, this destroys our argument because who cares if they are disjointed and scattered? They can still form a nation being that way so our argument is ruined.

D: Let's say the new nation will include people who do not speak this language. So. The argument said they would be the MAJORITY, not the entirety of the region, so even if they don't make up the majority, they could still be disjointed and therefore not make up a nation. See how this doesn't impact the argument at all? Hope this helps.

You hit the nail on the head. For some reason, I filtered out "majority" and that's what did it. Thank you so much! It's helpful to see your process, actually. In theory, I'm doing the same things, but I can see where I'm moving past steps too quickly for the sake of time.

@ said:

@ sums it up nicely, and just to add in:

It might be helpful to rewatch JY's video in the curriculum about Necessary Assumption questions because D is very clearly not an NA but could be seen as a kind of Sufficient Assumption. I think the LSAT writers like to bait you into confusing the two.

What I mean by saying D is like a SA is that it's much, much, stronger than C. If D were true, it's saying that this new nation would not just be "majority" Caronian but ENTIRELY Caronian. So if the question were something like "Which of the following, if true, would make the argument logically follow" and the conclusion was something along the lines of a majority Caronian nation being possible to make, then D would be a great sufficient assumption to cover your bases. Having a 100% Caronian nation would be sufficient for making a "majority" Caronian nation.

Meanwhile, C is weaker, and that's exactly what we look for in NA questions. I think in the video JY explains NA questions, he says they fall into two types -- "bridging" and "defending." In this question you're defending the argument against assumptions that would weaken the conclusion of "Hence, this recommendation cannot be satisfied." As Nicole says, if C is true, then your argument is destroyed. Other necessary assumptions here would be something like "Caronian speakers cannot all just move to the same place," because that would be another way to attack the argument.

I think also if you chose D instead of C, you weren't as focused on the conclusion, because D actually has nothing to do with why the recommendation can't be fulfilled?

Hope this helps!

Hey there. Yup, that's exactly what I mentioned in my original post haha. I keep falling for answers that fix the argument--that are too strong. Like an SA answer. To your last point, I think I filtered out the actual impact of the word majority on the argument. When you look at it that way D does actually have lot to do with why the recommendation can't be fulfilled. If the country needs to be mostly/all (why I assumed only the latter meaning is anyone's guess) Caronian speakers then D would definitely need to obtain (in the case of all). Of course that's too strong an assumption and isn't necessarily necessary when you take into consideration that they only needed to be a majority. But still.

I think if anything, I didn't pay enough attention to the argument the author was countering/discussing. Inherent in the definition of a nation--according to them--was that the Caronian speakers be the majority. So my asking "what if they didn't need to form the majority" in addition to, "what if they didn't need to be in a contiguous country" was unhelpful. Because the need for them to be the majority didn't just come from the author, it came from the original argument as well. But now this begs the question, how much attention should I pay to the "some people say" parts of arguments in general?

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll take a look at JY's videos on NA again.