@Alyisoffline Hi here is the link for those notes!

For this section I made a NA cheat sheet with different argument types and different typical NA answers for that argument type. It actually helped me a lot in predicting possible assumptions and analyzing the answer choices quicker.

I do think actually negating the answers are definitely helpful. I feel like its kind of a loophole imo. Now, I do not take the time to write it all out and negate that way, but I just do it mentally and use the exact phrase "Its not the case that....". May add a few extra seconds to kind of rephrase the answer choice in my head and reread BUT for me it's worth it vs the time I would spend trying to decipher the answer choices as is. May not work for everyone but luckily, I have gotten the past three questions right because of the negation test.

This section has humbled me truly. I do not know what it is, but SA is nottttt clicking for me.

I feel like I wish there was a different example used to introduce us to the PSAa because the language in this was very confusing. Additionally, I think the explanation was a bit too much and lost me. It might be better to read through this lesson instead.

Answer choice E looked perfect to me but really threw me off with the innocent people included in the answer. That was not something mentioned in the stim specifically so I thought B would have been the next best thing.

Sometimes I get a little confused when we start a new question type and we go straight into analyzing a question without super in-depth information on the question type such as with the RRE so far (at least in my opinion). So, I went onto Law Hub, and they had a really good article breaking down RRE questions on what they are and how to break down answering them. So, for anybody who struggles here and needs a more in-depth breakdown of the question types, I would highly recommend checking there.

I think definitely having an understanding of the grammar can really help break it down. I too typically get tripped up a lot by the wording, but I was able to break this one down really quickly on what they were comparing without all the extra modifiers. I just kind of ignored them lol and got right to the point. Then went straight to the answers to compare what I had and got it right!

Something I am trying to wrap my head around is the little amount of time we will have on the Lsat to think through these questions and answer them when in the explanation videos it can take 5-10 minutes to explain the question and answers. Now granted, the explanation videos are going in depth to help us understand but I am wondering how were supposed to look at this question and comprehend all of the things discuss in the video within 2 ish minutes on the lsat. Sigh

(got the question right so that's a plus)

I have been having some difficulty diagramming "some" and "more" quantifiers. I am not sure if visually it is not clicking for me. I end up wanting to place the -s- before instead of after the subject. I have not had difficulty visualizing when it comes to the conditional claims and the -> or <->. Intuitively, I have still been getting the questions correct by regularly inferring from the text. Does anyone have any suggestions for this or has anyone also struggled to visually understand from the symbols?

I was one of the people questioning whether chain logic was necessary a few lessons ago. I no longer question that lol. Luckily got it right by diagramming and then trying to match the answer choices to what I had.

I remember taking a logic class in college and we used the negation symbol as this ~ and not the slash/. I think the slash is throwing me off in these lessons a little bit. Either way I am realizing that logic class actually helped me a lot.

4/5 correct. I thought we were indicating subconclusions and tried to break Q1 as such