#feedback: typo in last paragraph of Various types of arguments: “Some arguments lay out a general principal…and apply that principal to a specific case…

Why can’t we conclude Mr. White can make heroin in question 9? It says he can only make it if he synthesizes LSD and we conclude that he does do that based on the logic. Just not meth or weed…

Edit: is it bc heroine is sufficient and LSD is necessary in that relationship?

Lol...I want to know where the line is for analogies to be insufficiently alike! I loved the analogy of the earth as the skin of world...

Although, I suppose it reveals my biases of immediately equating earth with dirt/land, and also being way too permissive with creative stretches...although really thinking about it now: the earth, not synonymized into dirt or land, is synonymous the world itself, not the skin of the world...so, I definitely see why E is correct!

I'm seeing more and more how much the LSAT is all about identifying and calling out the presumptions and biases that we bring to the table when evaluating arguments!