A lot of these examples are in various verb tenses, but you seem to translate all tenses to the present when you translate from lawgic back to English. Does the LSAT ever try to use verb tense to confuse/mask logic?

Can you elaborate on how the following claim is likely to impact the structure of questions on the test? "While the contrapositive is logically implied by the original statement, it isn't automatically inferred by everyone, including potentially the [subject in the context]."

I am grasping how this operation works to map the logic - ignore the context. Conduct the analysis and translation - but I am concerned by the ways this might be used to trip us up on the text.

Isn't it the case that the statement "Melissa arrived less than five minutes past the last ring", by using the antonym of "more" rather than the negation of it does not actually fit the rules you set out for creating contrapositive? Sure, it's one form of the contrapositive, but it excludes other possibilities.

Also, can you please say more about how "only if" functions to delineate sufficient rather than necessary conditions?

Do questions show up on the logical reasoning section(s) that don't include arguments?

This question makes sense, but only if I assume that every use of "candidate" implies fully qualified candidate. I was on guard for an answer to swap C for what seems to be the necessary qualification FQC, but that didn't happen. So, I lost time. Any tips for speeding up on questions like this?

#feedback, I really like the combo of Kevin's explanations + typed outline that is used in this video format. It's much easier to read and follow. Thanks! :-)

In the paragraph before the *, there is a typo "fell or a trap".

Is anyone else really feeling all the reading in the past several lessons is just a slog? #feedback it would be really nice if you broke up these sections with a few videos.

Also, #feedback it would be really nice if we could annotate these. long reading lessons as well, just like we can with RC passages. We are essentially doing the same task, only you are not letting us annotate when we need it. You only let us add notes at the bottom.

This section REALLY needs examples.

There is a typo in #10 explanation: "...Ray sees and opportunity..." "and" should be "an"