Q20 -- I chose D but changed to E in blind review. I need to review my conditional logic but if I diagrammed E it would diagram out to:

host thrives -> parasite thrives

That's what the passage says, no? Can anyone explain why this logic I shared is flawed?

this explanation doesn't make sense? JY says it's OK to be over-inclusive and that's why we select E.

then while going through the rest of the answers he says they're all wrong because they're over-inclusive. what?? #feedback

i don't find this conditional logic in this one to be helpful. i get that they're trying to teach us how to do the analysis and we won't actually map that whole thing out on test day, but was all of that biconditional / negate whatever stuff actually helpful for anyone in building the analytical skills that would actually be useful for the exam? #feedback

i got this wrong because i read this as "however, realistically, those photographs..." and not "however realistically those photographs..."

interested! on PST time though

you're exactly right that it's because it's a conditional conclusion. only in the universe that Sandstrom knew her column would damage the farm would she be held responsible. but we don't know whether or not she did; more importantly, we don't need to

I'm getting tripped up on the word "Many" in Answer Choice (E). I thought that "many" essentially means "some" on the LSAT. If only some people who regularly consume camellia also consume other beverages suspected of causing kidney damage, is this answer choice really that powerful enough to weaken the argument? Like, if 20 out of 100 people also consume other beverages that can cause kidney damage, what is the impact on the stimulus's argument? #help