I'm proud of myself for getting this right. It makes sense to understand this question as a contrapositive. Basically, if people aren't smart enough to understand music, then this leads back to a no-good show.

I plainly chose E because all the other answer choices brought about external ideas ASIDE from what's strictly in the passage. The passage also mentions "skillful drivers" so I chose an answer that alludes to this described education. Perhaps my way of thinking is a bit crazy.

Does anyone feel like these kind of mental gymnastics are like equations? In that case, I'm not a fan of this kind of math lol. All I can deduce this is into is just standard sentences: Anyone who eats expired food--> gets sick. I ate expired food. Therefore, I get sick.

the use of all these circles is alot for me to take in. As long as I know what's vaild/invalid, & A leads to B, etc., I should be fine. Realistically, how am I supposed to draw a plethora of circles for identifying relationships during the LSAT? I'm on a time crunch.

I noticed in the passage, the use of 3 similar examples was crammed into it. But the Tshirt sentence made the most sense to me. Hence, it seemed like when this comedian thought their Tshirt was going to draw alot of attention yet that wasn't the case; so, E was my answer. I chose an answer that mirrored how my logic process worked, and I guess I got it right!

The reason why I chose C is because this other "leading competitor" is "leading" for a reason. I read the word "leading" as the same as the term "runner-up"; so, 1st Place: Danaxil, 2nd Place: Competitor. Hence, "Evelyn's headache will be relieved at least as quickly as Jane's." So while this Competitor medicine is pretty good, it still does its job just as well as Danaxil.

This is an "identify the role" question type. The phrase "figures" is this question type's indicator. My steps then are to locate the sentence being questioned, identify the MAIN conclusion, and how said identified sentence's relationship IS to the main conclusion. My trouble, however, is not seeing any sub-conclusion sentences/indicators and only looking out for MCs. I see now that the phrase "indicates that" is an indicator for SC.

I feel as though relying on indicator words works best considering they can quite obviously show you whether a statement is a premise or conclusion (also save time on thinking.) If there are no indicator words present, the best thing I can do then is to identify and feel if a passage has said premises and conclusions. Lastly, I’ve noticed that some passages use “x, and x” which seem to show that these X’s are conjoined premises.