I don't get this question.

The premise says we NEED the medical knowledge, so we're already confined to those parameters of needing this knowledge.

This introduction of robots completely disregards the premise which says that we need the knowledge.

Hey, I fall into that category. Testing in April and interested in connecting

My only issue with this is that if Calcium Carbonate were to neutralize stomach acid at amounts say, 60 g or above, you can still characterize the description as "Calcium carbonate has the capacity to neutralize stomach acid"

I see your points, but I'm not sure how the LSAT gets around that one. I think that's what a lot of people are struggling with here.

Hi, I'm confused though - isn't X only talking about medical research performed on animals? Y introduces a new type of research, one that doesn't seem to be performed on animals at all.

If X were to have said "Medical research in general always involves trade offs between humans and animals", I would see how Y's new research method is contradicting that - "no! med research doesn't always involve suffering for animals; in fact, we can avoid suffering them altogether by computer modeling."

But X isn't making that claim - they are just saying that any research that involves ANIMALS, necessitates trade offs between humans and animals. I don't think Y contradicts this, because they introduce a new type of research, non-animal involved, altogether. In other words, Y's new research isn't even in the realm of research that X is referring to

how should we interpret "the only" in this question?

I see it as two ways:

1. As introducing the sufficient condition - "If 'obligation all parties have', then 'act in best interests"

2. "Intuitive"/Natural Meaning - Producers/Consumers are only obligated to act in their best interests (which puts "obligation" in the necessary condition.

Hi, wanted to follow up on this - isn't "the only" a sufficient indicator? I diagrammed it the same as Trust the Process above and did "If obligation, then act in best interests"

obviously, the conclusion assigns "best interest" as the sufficient condition though. . .