@Kevin_Lin My answers to your questions.

During the question-answering phase, I anticipated that the answer would mention one or both of these things:

"Jurors would be more inclined to widen their perspective — not necessarily be more favorable — towards a client with baggage,

and/or

Those jurors would be more likely to be resistant/unaffected by (— unaffected being defined as being neutral to — opposing testimony about that client's same baggage from the prosecution — said outcome would then be favorable for the defense."

This anticipation left A and B open. I then chose A because it felt like it fit the bill for this anticipation better. B stating "reliable in courtroom settings" felt wrong given the sentence preceding with "actual trials." Nothing about counterarguments landed with me since when a defense attorney is "stealing thunder", their presentation can counterargue/introduce a counterargument (usually does) to a prosecutor's prospective argument, or something filed pre-trial/statement made in media in a flashy case.

C and E don't fit this bill, and D centered on "focus," which wasn't directly the point of the phrasing.

5/7 and 2/7

I could've been more attentive on the first passage, but that second passage is CRAZY.

Got this one easily

Hi, Kevin! I answered this question correctly within my time target. It wasn't difficult for me to see that A was correct, and that C-E were not realistic answer choices, but I currently have difficulty with eliminating B as an answer choice. I eliminated it simply because it didn't "feel" as strong as A.

The verbal and written explanation provided for eliminating B did NOT help at all. Some of the comments have implied other processes, such as questioning the applicability of simulations to real-world contexts, but I'm not sure if that's how I should be looking at eliminating this choice.

Any detailed explanations from you or anyone advanced in this sect of RC would be appreciated.

Hi, Kevin. (lol)

For those curious, how "C" is the correct answer to this question, note the word, "If." Once you do, things should become a lot clearer.

Condition A for ineffectiveness is met: "a significant amount of money to enforce."

Condition B is given to us: "Thus, if...does not raise revenue,"

Your mind likely assumed that the statements in the answer choice didn't connect with each other, but they actually do because of the word "If."

Hope this helps.

Got this right extremely quickly without using arrows.

Went 3/3, but the semantics are crazy, especially with Q1.

SORE WA CHIGAU YO - "Some students can read" is not 1. In English, that phrase means at least 2 due to the plural wording. To make the wording inclusive of singulars, it must utilize ambiguity. "Some students might be able to read".

Got the question right. I wasn't trying to speed the question correctly. I understood the lawgic correctly, but writing the arrows in this instance was time-consuming.

Mapping it out makes answering this easy, but is there any cohesive way to do this under strict time constraints?

Missed one question.

I got the two answers correct fairly easily, but I need to move much quicker than I did to answer them due to the time constraints of the LSAT.

This question is written poorly. "Each student who received a grade lower than a B- missed at least one class session." We (the readers) do not have information on the grades of the people who attended every class. While reading conventionally, to assume all-attending students got a B- or higher is not appropriate without information, such as stating "ONLY students who missed at least one class session received a grade lower than a B-".