Interesting just how poorly written this particular passage was. Rather than packaging all of the relevant information together, using language that didn't obfuscate the full meaning, and avoiding mid-sentence asides that embed more complex structures...LSAC actively aims to have poor constructions that aren't objectively wrong.

And that's my biggest takeaway yet again: if there is a series of phrases that are packaged together in an arcane way IT'S ON PURPOSE and CLOSE READ. Because a difficult question (or two or three) is incoming.

@whelp I think you are correct for the non-fiction categorization but narrative literature is not necessarily 1:1 with fiction.

I think D could have been correct had it included "on the basis of its theoretical consequences." But practical is not what is being debated, so it's out.

@jkatz1488955 you're long gone, but: "Furthermore, while obligations such as those of corporate CEOs to corporate owners are binding in a business or legal sense"

@CherishWilliams Great question. It is not what the sentence actually says but that IS how it is written. That's where the trick is: the sentence isn't written in the same IF->THEN format as the stimulus (but he didn't talk about that in the video or explanation; that's a miss for me).

You could actually mentally rewrite the first sentence of B to to an IF THEN say:

In order to taste good a cake must contain the right amount of flour.

At that point you have A->B. Good.

Now we need Taste Good -> Right Amount Flour for it to work. The second sentence says just that: It therefore follows that cakes that do not taste good do not contain the right amount of flour.

I get why you missed it, and I think it would have been borderline diabolical if LSAC had included better answer choices to trick you but none of the other answer choices were alluring in a mean way, thankfully.

"Is doing that what makes the argument vulnerable to criticism?" Think it should be "that WHICH makes..."

Isolate the conclusion first. Then premises.

C: increased H, less likely MT

P1: C&U MB -> less likely H as MT

P2: increase H -> less likely judge HB

Where are the links and gaps? There is no connection between "C&U MB" and "judge HB" anywhere. Looks like a premise involving those is in order.

Enter answer B.

Again, first thing after reading stem is to get down the conclusion. It's apparent we can lose marital vows and no one/anyone so:

C: don't take love to refer to feelings

The MV contain UDDUP is just context, so throw that aside.

P1: if love = feeling -> promise sense

P2: (why p1?) feelings controlled

P3: control = sense

At this point there is a gap between "things making sense" in the premises and not finding anything about "things making sense" in the conclusion. The answer will have to bridge that gap.

A) missing sense reference. Restates P2 differently

B) missing sense reference. It doesn't tie to the conclusion. Trap, but also simple pass

C) missing sense reference. It ties to conclusion, but not the premises to the conclusion

D) DOES have sense reference. Seems logically sound with other premises. Let's check if E is better.

E) DOES have sense reference. But this would also seem to make it valid that one could argue against ever getting married, which is not what the conclusion is stating. Also not seeing where we've already encountered promises that can't be kept.

Looking back at D, it is using interpret in conjunction with promises and their sense. That seems very much aligned with the conclusion.

*These questions hone HOME in on the distinction between what is specific and what is general.

@Kevin_Lin Universal is present. I think "appears" preceding the universal is where it softens notably as compared to an unrestrained "all" in C. I can see why C is correct but it also seems a stretch to say it is a good answer. For me it's simply less bad than the rest, which is evidently the thing to take away. Would agree that past lessons have primed the response of a reflexive "ah it says all, eliminate."