Top Law Schools

Here's how I figured out E is wrong:

Stimulus: X consists not in A, but B
Conclusion: X' consists tends to be one not as C, but as D.

Gap: X--B --> D

B addresses exactly this gap, but E is kind of the opposite:

Negation of E would be: C-->B, together with the stimulus that X-->B, we can not yield anything with regard to X and C.
If we change E into "one's sense of approval of one's character and projects does not increase one's material well-being", can we say this is also a right Necessary Assumption? (meaning B--/C, X--B => X--/C)

And the lesson of this question is that always heeding the right "direction" of the conditional logic in the Answer Choices?

Any help? Thank you in advance!

is this how you normally approach NA questions

BillPackets wrote:is this how you normally approach NA questions

Yes... any comments?

Idk pretty mechanical typically you don't need to approach them in such a way n just takes longer don't have that Q in front of me ATM but in that particular Q you just needed to link premise to conclusion which is what B did. I'm just sayin there's an easier way to do them bc typically NA either require u 2 link premise to conclusion or fill a gap

BillPackets wrote:Idk pretty mechanical typically you don't need to approach them in such a way n just takes longer don't have that Q in front of me ATM but in that particular Q you just needed to link premise to conclusion which is what B did. I'm just sayin there's an easier way to do them bc typically NA either require u 2 link premise to conclusion or fill a gap

Thanks BillPackets! I think I might overthink on this one... But I think I remember a similar Q with a different kind of right answer choice. Will post here if I can dig it up. Thank you again!