I am super confused on this question. the desert part in the conclusion is throwing me off. someone please explain this to me

how do I know whether grammar is an issue for me?

how did you know that there is overlap in the techniques taught in short term and long term training based on answer choice E? how could you tell it was a subset and superset relationship?

how would you do this question if you do not know what "attrition" means?

I feel that I run into issues with not knowing the meaning of a word and then it impacts my ability to solve the question accurately.

I feel like a lot of my issues with these kinds of questions and other question types so far are coming from me not knowing what I read or not remembering what I read or me misinterpreting what I read.

any suggestions to fix this?

how do I know when I can equate /bad soil and good soil? I didn't equate them because there is possibly mediocre soil and because negation is not the same as opposite.

I was able to diagram the question properly but still had difficulty translating it into the correct answer. I did all the diagramming correctly but still picked the wrong answer.

Does anyone have any suggestions for this??

why is it the case that B could cause C and not a regular causal arrow (--c-->)?

one thing that I am still struggling with is how to make inferences from the stimulus that are reasonable.

I am also struggling with how to identify the assumptions made in the answer choices and the stimulus as well as the assumptions that I make for the stimulus and answer choices.

any suggestions?

what's the difference between an embedded conditional and a disjunction?? this feels the same to me as the example:

If M gets adopted, either O gets adopted or P gets adopted

M --> O or P

this may be a stupid question, but how do you even know if you have an embedded conditional from the English text alone. I can obviously identify it in its logic form given the parentheses, but I am having trouble with identifying it when it is in English...

could someone help? do you have any other examples of English text that contains embedded conditionals?

Also, would this be the case:

cat --> mammal

but NOT mammal --> cat

if someone said mammal --> cat, then this could be confusing sufficiency for necessity which is the oldest mistake in the book

is this correct?

I wanted to ask a clarifying question. Would a good way to understand this be

if in subset --> then in superset

then the negation:

if not in superset --> then not in subset

I am having a tough time understanding and applying and recognizing this concept on LSAT questions.