Yes, it's because it's 'most' strongly supported. To answer MSS questions, the degree of certainty needed for the correct answer choice is lower than it would need to be in Inference & MBT questions; MSS questions are asking you to pick the answer choice that makes the most sense based off of the information in the stimulus and when compared to the other four answer choices. (C) is right even though less absolute language like "usually" is used because the answer as a whole seems the most likely to be proven true based on the information in the stimulus. Additionally, all of the other four answer choices have lower degrees of provability (we can't even conclude/prove the truth about some of them, like (A) and (B)), which makes them less likely to be supported by the stimulus. So, even though (C) is less than perfect in the language it uses, it's the best out of the bunch.

According to LSAC's website, reading aloud is a prohibited behavior. I'm assuming the same goes for talking out loud during the test. Here's the link: https://www.lsac.org/update-coronavirus-and-lsat/lsat-flex#:~:text=the%20LSAT%2DFlex%3F-,To%20meet%20the%20anticipated%20demand%20and%20the%20needs%20of%20the,hours%20for%20standard%20test%20takers.

Me too!

Now, I see why I mistakenly chose (D). The author concludes that less money is currently being spent on effective treatments that it was 10 years ago (current spending on effective treatments vs. spending on effect treatment a decade ago). (D) provides the premise that most of the money spent during the last ten years went toward non-standard/ineffective treatments (money spent on nonstandard treatments vs. money spent on standard treatments). The amount of money spent on non-standard is irrelevant and doesn't justify the conclusion because the conclusion is concerned with only standard treatment (current spending on effective treatments vs. spending on effect treatment a decade ago).

Also, the way I'm looking at it is that for (D) to be correct we would have to assume that IF a higher percentage of money spent on non-standard treatment, THEN a lesser amount of money is spent on standard treatments. This does not HAVE to be true:

10 YEARS AGO:

Total amount: $200

% of standard treatments: 50%

% of nonstandard treatments: 50%

TODAY:

Total amount: $800

% of standard treatments: 40%

% of nonstandard treatments: 60%

While a higher percentage was spent on nonstandard, a lesser amount of money on standard treatments did NOT occur. In fact, more money was spent on standard treatments than it was 10 years ago and that would weaken our conclusion instead of proving it. Therefore, if (D) is wrong because it doesn't offer the conclusion airtight validity required of a SA question (IF correct answer choice, THEN conclusion).

Carl's argument: When animals undergo experimental operations, detailed pain protocols are performed. There are no pain protocols when humans undergo operations and there should be. [Argument by analogy --> situations are relevantly similar]

Debbie's response: Pain protocols are unnecessary for humans because people can be told what sort of pain to expect and they can then decide if they want surgery. [Points out the relevant dissimilarities in Carl's argument, such as the presence/absence of consent]

A: So? We're talking about operations that are painful.

B: Irrelevant to Debbie's response.

C: I guess that's nice? Irrelevant to the situated presented.

D: Correct. Debbie's assumption is that consent can be given by the individual/patient themselves. Answer choice D points out that not all persons/patients can provide their own consent.

E: Irrelevant to the situation presented (nothing can be assumed about the healing process based upon the premises/phenomenon).

Yes. Back in the 1990s, some LSAT tests would contain two LR questions in a row that would refer to the same passage/stimulus. The post-2000s LSATs have pretty much done away with that practice but it's helpful to know when taking those practice tests from the '90s.