AC D threw me off because I could totally see the LSAT take "in order to benefit others", and go "oh no that's wrong. We said attain a certain goal and you are making too much of an assumption that those are the same thing".

The explanation for why D is wrong doesn't make sense based on the prompt. The question didn't ask us whether it was valid or not, just if it followed a similar pattern of reasoning.

Kind of bothered that the explanation for why E is wrong seems to be a similar or same issue with C, yet C is right.

These curve breakers don't make sense to me. The problem with C seems to be similar to the justification for why D is correct. Why would D be more correct at that point?

Starting to think the LSAT is just a giant exercise in justifying poorly written sentences.

I get that LR questions don't always make sense in a real-world application, but the way B is written makes it seem like the pool being open before noon is conditioned upon Biba's neighbor having a child under the age of 6.

While I understand the lesson, LR more and more feels like a game made up by that kid on the playground who constantly changes the rules to win.

I tend to work long, unpredictable hours as well. One thing that has helped me is to study early in the mornings. I'll try to get about an hour or so in every morning right when I wake up and before I start the rest of the day since it's the only consistent time of day I have. It was a little hard at first, but sitting down with my first cup of coffee for the day and digging in for an hour or so has almost become like a relaxing morning habit. I'll caveat, my circadian rhythm is a bit screwed up. So I am usually awake by 4AM whether I want to be or not.