I think you might be misinterpreting what answer choice E is saying.

E says that the nation [whose anticapitalistic measures the people in question bemoan] had totalitarian regimes in the recent past. Not that the people bemoaning said nation had lived under a totalitarian regime in the past.

To rephrase it another way, the people [who bemoan the seemingly anticapitalist measures government A is currently taking] are being hasty because government A is in a transition from a totalitarian regime to a democracy. Answer choice E is the assumption required to connect the premise to the conclusion.

I got this question correct initially, but am going through all the NA questions in an attempt to improve and just got it incorrect..

Premise: Naturally beautiful regions often experience influx of residents, which causes business to relocate to these regions

Conclusion: Government-mandated environmental protection in these regions can help economies overall, even if the protections harm some older industries

What I am looking for: need to connect premise to conclusion — so far we are not able to determine how the env regs will help economy overall, regardless if older industries will potentially be negatively impacted. So, influx of residents -> new business -> strengthen economy, despite potential harm to older industries caused by government-mandated env protections

A: what? took me a minute to parcel out (instincts told me to eliminate when going through in real time) but this implies that once env regs are imposed, new residents won’t be attracted to the region. Definitely not a necessary assumption.

B: I choose this because I made some sort of assumption that if this statement were true (local industries have shit-all to do with the economies of these regions), that I made a further assumption that ok, of course, new businesses would positively impact the economy? When in actuality this choice does nothing for or against the argument

C: Env regs -> Influx of people -> stronger economy? Ok sure… strengthens argument but isn’t necessary

D: Irrelevant - who cares?

E: Correct. A factor (env regs) that is harmful to older local industries doesn’t negatively impact the economy, as new business are unaffected by the regs and can still move to the region

I know this is two years ago but... you're right, we don't know what people think, but we know how the author thinks people should operate i.e. they should get legal wills. When the author is stating what one ought to do, they're just stating a general principle that they believe should be applied to all people. Or at least that's a tiny assumption that the LSAT writers are having us made.

And in order for the author's principle to be properly drawn, we have to assume that people give a shit about what happens to their stuff after they die, since the premise just simply describes how their estates (pardon the pun) will be distributed if they have no will and it's left up to the current laws. The author makes the critical assumption, that one cares about their estates after they die.

I think the key part of the stim that identifies this question as a necessary assumption and not sufficient assumption question is the fact that they are asking which principle must be assumed (keyword = must) in order for the argument to be properly drawn.

If it were a sufficient assumption question, the stim might be "Which one of the following principles, if assumed, enables the argument to be properly drawn". For SA, a number of statements could allow the argument to be properly drawn, but in this question, there is a critical / necessary assumption which is being left out.

Would like to be included! I work FT but have been studying since June. I've done 36-40 and 43, am trying to work my way into the newer tests. Am currently hitting mid 160s but my goal is 168+.

Also interested!

Same here