/Feedback Q2 introduced a concept that had not previously been reviewed with the use of "OR"

I believe it would be more helpful to save drills for concepts that haven't been reviewed in lessons until after we have been introduced to it

/feedback For the Jedi argument, break down the lawgic sentence by sentence. Currently, it jumps right to the solution

This was a helpful tip, because I often find myself rereading a sentence over and over when it's complex trying to understand what it's saying. going to practice visually thinking of the information in the sentence and drawing it out to help parse out the information

Q2 threw me for a loop because "the government is certain to respond," doesn't appear to be supported by anything. Following the indicator words, and sentence structure, that sentence appears to be the conclusion, but it premises are not connected in any way b/c it's so vague.

Maybe I was being too literal though, since the purpose of this exercise is mainly to identify.

I think by "this is a really tough question" you meant impossible. Just when I though I was starting to understand SA questions, this question humbled m

These SA questions are kicking my butt, but I'm going to figure them out!

I understand the explanation for B. However, I don't believe it is fully supported by the passage. Isn't it true, that B could be true/could be false? B also includes the scenario where less coal is mined in 1991 than in 1990. If less coal is mined in 1991, than less coal could have been consumed in 1991 than 1990 making B incorrect. The passage doesn't say that total available coal supplies equals mined throughout the history of the country, it only said coal mined throughout the country.

How am I the reader supposed to know that the LSAT actually was implying total available to be the overall total, including reserves?

Or am I reading B wrong? Is this actually a MSS question and not a MBT?