because we're still in the 'foundations' part of the syllabus, I believe these rules apply to every section of the LSAT.

I feel like all this negating is just making things more complex because the LSAT doesn't ask for lawgic or negation really... I understand it's supposed to be a method to help navigate questions more easily, but it's just confusing me.

Question 12 was the only question I had a difficult time with, even after the explanation. The complete translation is what threw me for a loop.

The example was very helpful + the explanation! I thought it would be a little more difficult without the videos, but it just makes me read + concentrate more which I think has helped give a better understanding.

Same.. the word 'should' in both answer choices A and D confuses me.. because both answers state that "if they wish" to avoid/maintain.

came back to help clarify after watching the video over and over lol

D would make a more suitable answer choice because it mentions people wanting to avoid gaining weight.

Answer choice A talks about people on low fat diets who wish to maintain the body's required energy.. which doesn't matter because the stim speaks of fatty foods and low fat diets which says people are not looking to gain body fat, not that they wish to maintain energy.

For MSS Questions, the answer choice will be the conclusion. Here, answer choice D concludes the stim perfectly.

hope this helps!

The conclusion states that sediments were found under the ice sheet covering about 3 million years ago, therefore the Antartica ice sheet must have temporarily melted.

Answer choice C states that The ice sheet covering Antartica has not been continuously present throughout the past 14 million years.

If there were sediments found under the ice sheet covering 3 million years ago, then there is no way that Antartica has been covered by ice for at least the past 14 million years. (which paraphrases the conclusion)

hope this helps!