The correct answer is (C), but I feel that while the stimulus says there is no nonresident who needs to register with the city council, it doesn't (explicitly?) say whether residents or former residents need to register, thus the conclusion of (C) seems not guaranteed?

It doesn't mention any disclosure requirements by residents and former residents, therefore no such requirement exists in the context of this question. HTH.

I'll answer if you edit your post to remove the question's text; otherwise a mod might delete the thread.

But does it assume too much?

"The" on "The law" suggests that is the one and only relevant law regarding contributions in this case, no?

Yep. "The law regarding contributions to campaigns is..." is sort of like saying "The book I brought to class is..."; it insinuates that there is only one.

I agree that the passage refers to *the* law of the city regarding contributions. If the passage had said *a* law of the city regarding contributions, that would have allowed the possibility of other laws and conditions. But, as it is, the use of “the” indicates that there is only one city law concerning mayoral campaigns. But that is very easy to miss when you are working under timed conditions.

However, your point is a good one, even if it does not apply to this case. In general, a necessary condition can have many sufficient conditions. For instance, if you murder someone and you are caught, you will go to jail. But murdering someone is not the only sufficient condition for going to jail. For instance, if you steal a car and you are caught, you will go to jail. There are many sufficient conditions for the necessary condition of going to jail.

The close reading that it takes to notice the use of “the” instead of the use of “a”, and pick up on the implication, is one of the reasons this is a very hard question. I’m sure “the” is used to trick the reader. In the real world there are always several laws concerning campaign contributions. And so we would expect there to be several sufficient conditions for the necessary condition that contributions be registered. But the LSAT is not the real world and Weston is not a real city.

The other reason that this is a very hard question is that (E) appears to be necessarily true as well as (C). Again, this is a trick. It does necessarily follow that no contributions *needed* to be registered, which is (C). But it does not necessarily follow that no contributions were in fact registered, which is (E). Some contributions might have been registered by mistake. If so, it would still be true that Brimley complied with the campaign law, even though he registered a contribution he did not need to register by mistake. (A), (B) and (D) are non-starters. But (E) is a contender. In the rush of finishing the section, very few people are going to think of the possibility that Brimley may have registered some contributions by mistake.

Yep. The LSAT is being tricksy.

Truly, one of the groan-worthy questions for that reason.