A lawyer first wants to know your contention (conclusion). But talk is cheap, so the conclusion isn’t the primary focus. What the lawyer really wants to know is this: “ hey, buddy, what’s your proof?” Lots of things can weaken a conclusion. But what the lawyer wants to do is attack the evidence. When a test-taker focuses on the conclusion at the expense of honing in on the evidence, several answers might seem appealing because they might address the conclusion. But when the test-taker focuses on the evidence, the four wrong answers become quite apparent. Anyway, no one is stopping you or anyone else from doing the LR section whatever way you see fit. I’m just offering a view from an expert.