Your first point suggest I'm going to get very frustrated at people like you who seem to care to teach first and learn later (bad combo).

I never stated that I lacked clarity. But I was factually misrepresented. Also, define clarity. A presenter could feel they were clear and a listener could feel they weren't. Once a definition is agreed upon, you can assess this. But I won't teach you about this now assess bouts I've gotten tired of this thread and have absorbed what I needed to.

In the original circumstances, the answer given is both necessary and sufficient. I don't feel like talking about this any more as its been addressed properly - reread it iif you want.

I never said this will or will not appear on the lsat. To make any such certain claims are fallacious, as I'm not are crystal ball. But if you really get what's happening, it's absolutely possible. I don't need to show you an lsat that has done it as I never made a claim that would warrant that kind of evidence.

You already misunderstood me before (look at your initial comments), maybe it's happening again.

Stimuli often move especially in justify conclusion questions where the answer works to prove a conclusion that wasn't proved in the initial stimulus. Maybe were just thinking of the term moved differently.

How can you tell someone it won't happen. At least hedge it - you're not a crystal ball.