This answer really left me stumped when I was doing it but I believe the key lies in the following sentence: "Reporters should never interpret the news. Once they deem a story to be newsworthy, they are...". Ramon is essentially stating that he believes that in this world, reporters should never interpret the news, but right after, he states that it is ok for reporters to deem what story is newsworthy and what is not. Therefore, we can implicitly conclude that Ramon believes that deciding which story should be aired/reported on does not fall under the definition of interpreting the news, as that would not align with his world belief that reporters should never interpret the news.

This therefore clearly leads to answer E.

I had no clue what the words in answer choice D meant but I was able to get it right by eliminating all the other answer choices. If I don't know what an AC or some words in the AC mean, that's my general strategy for trying to answer the question. Hopefully that helps anyone else who didn't know what D was saying.

If you have trouble getting over the 'significantly' in answer choice C, what helped me is understanding that the LSAT writers use the word 'significantly' differently, at least in this case. I understand significantly to mean 'strongly', but in this situation they are using significantly to mean that it was significant enough to make a difference.

Very happy with the curriculum so far and a big part of that is the great explanations in the video and emphasis on fundamentals.

Does anyone have advice for identifying when ideas should be separated in the necessary clause?

For example in the first question, I was able to pretty quickly identify the sufficient and necessary clauses, but did not separate relocated panda and /prosper. I put /relocatedpandaprosper

I initially picked A but changed it to D in blind review. The reason D attracted me was because I made the assumption that if a deal was made with environmentalists, that they would heavily restrict the use of natural resources, which would result in significantly less improvement. But we just don't know if that compromise would have heavily restricted the use of natural resources, which is what the conclusion in the stimulus is.

Most of the people who ate on that restaurant on that day did not come into contact with the bacteria, but that doesn't mean that the several people who got sick did not come into contact with the bacteria. E picks up on this. I misunderstood Most as referring only to the sick people, not to everyone who ate at the restaurant on that day.

I got this right on first take but changed my answer in blind review to D after reading 'probably', but as others have mentioned, because the premises are not absolute, and the conclusion rests on an argument, its ok to use probably.