The important thing here is to realize that the sentence "Thus, if Skiffs book is as important and as well written as Skiff claims, he will be promoted" is simply saying that in a world where the book is as important as Skiff says and it also happens to be well written, the book will be published. What it does not say is that the book will be published ONLY if it is well written and important. Imagine that the sentence "Skiff's book will be published this year if it is as important as he claims it is" was inserted right after the first sentence of the argument. If this is true, then the only criteria that needs to be met for the book to be published is that it's as important as Skiff claimed it was. It could also be well written, but it doesn't have to be because the criteria has already been met if it's important. It could have just as easily read "thus if Skiff's book is as important as he claims and the cover of the book is red, then the book will be published." The additional details are irrelevant as long as the criteria is met.

Think more in the context of the passage. Darwinism is the more general or overarching theory, while social Darwinism is a more specific application of a general theory. So in the context of Darwinism vs social darwinism, the term "general" wouldn't really apply. If it makes you feel any better I still put down E.

u hard

Stop relying on key words as indicators for certain types of flaws (or any kind or argumentative component for that matter). There are many different ways in which a particular flaw can be worded and the LSAC will use them in ways to confuse you as much as possible. Try and reread the passage again as if it were a conversation you were having with a friend. It states that "...understanding a person leads one to forgive that person completely." We can simplify this statement to: something leads one to do something. For example, "Physical activity leads one to sweat" would follow this same general outline. Just because physical activity leads people to start sweating doesn't mean it's the only cause of sweating ; you can obviously start sweating from high temp etc. Rewording the argument above into the context of our sweat analogy (also assuming that physical activity is impossible for the sake of the example), the author is essentially stating that since physical activity is impossible, it is also impossible to sweat. If the writer of the argument had said that the ONLY way to forgive that person entirely was to understand them completely then it would follow logically and there would be no flaw. Understanding a person completely would be sufficient to forgive them entirely, but not necessary. Physical activity is sufficient to cause sweating but it is not necessary to cause someone to sweat.

Why would having a disability reflect poorly on you. Y'all gotta relax man

On the real thing there's 4 sections, but one is an experimental section, meaning it doesn't get counted toward your score. I would make 2 separate calculations, each with one of the repeated sections.

Any tips for getting faster in LG? I can consistently score 100% when I don't time myself, but I usually don't get to the last 4 or 5 questions normally