This is fantastic! Thanks a lot.

Can you not do contrapositive with De Morgan's Law?

@HenryLehmann Someone I know who took the LSAT said you earn doing it fast and intuitively by lots of diagramming practice which stuck with me.

I'm struggling with number four a bit - if it's 2 groups 200 randomly selected subjects for both trials the correct answer seems like a large interpretive overreach for me.

What about ≤/12 (less than or equal to half of) for negating most?

@OmarAbuaita He talks about this around 5:00 in the video lol

Eliminating the redundant requirements definitely eye opening!

Kicking as much universal/not contested info to the domain to keep the diagramming simple helps me a lot.

That monster question made my brain feel like it was dying but I ended up with /physically dangerous and inspires revulsion -> horrific -> threatening which I don't think it was really right but got me there.

Was I wrong to go SAS-> /P and /A-> SAS and then combine to /A-> SAS -> /P? I noticed it didn't say she actually delivered the speech and got it right but felt I was following the group three unless rules here.

Brutal

Subset membership is enough for superset membership but not required. Superset membership is required for subset membership, but not enough.

@AR91 Easier way for me to ask does something else support this? If so I usually find it's an intermediate conclusion and works pretty well so far.

Echo what everyone else is saying about taking my time and making sure I understood what each part of the argument was doing. I've also done a fair amount of drills and did the free lawhub stuff so I often feel like I'm in a stage where I can overthink and psych myself out of an easy answer - but 3/3!