These should be labelled as optional because, to me, they were very unclear and added so much noise when doing the practice problems from before. Totally mind-boggled.

these messed e up 0/3 lol

brain mush

I'm always confused when you use a necessary + suff negate term in the same sentence (i.e., no one XYZ unless ABC) do you just negate both and keep it in the same order?

What if the thing you negate is already negative? Do you just positive it?

How is #5 a conditional statement

I still feel that "But this is not a sustainable, long-term solution" is an IC because it's getting support from the next sentence which says they haven't devised a suitable recycling or disposal plan". Isn't recycling/disposal plan support that it doesn't have a SUSTAINABLE plan?

Not sure if this will help people, but how I think of it is that one (the conclusion) is a statement, it's blunt and makes a clear point. the support (premise) is the evidence that supports it. In the Ex. about the tiger, the most blunt point is that some mammals aren't a good pet. The evidence to back this up (the knitty gritty) is like...well, look at a fricken tiger! They can't be a pet.

hope this is helpful to some extent.

there are also indicator words for conclusion + premise (use sparingly) but I assume we'll get to it

i have a relationship with the LSAT. it's complicated

For question 2 why doesn't without drinking a beer cancel out/negate to drinking a beer

I misunderstood the question too :( I thought it was asking how to make the application of the rule acceptable, not specifically making Matilde's application acceptable lol ugh