@MaxThompson I chose B because of these lines in the passage:

 "Therefore, the best way to address concerns about judicial impartiality is to require judges to make their reasoning transparent. Accordingly, we should eliminate disqualification motions alleging bias, whether actual or apparent. This unreliable mechanism should be replaced by the requirement of a written explanation of either the reasons for a judge's decision to recuse, or if the judge decides against recusal, the legal basis for the judgment reached, based on the merits of the case." 

This to me feels like stronger support than what is listed for answer choice C (which only refers to "rules governing judicial ethics," which could include the judge self-recusing, and not specifically requests for disqualification)  because it directly connects the idea of motions alleging bias with the written explanation solution. 

I understand conceptually why these two ideas are not incompatible, but I still struggle with this because it seems like the LSAT is basically expecting the testaker to evaluate the claims rather than state what the author seems to convey (which is what the question asks for explicitly).

I only ever get SA questions right when I map, but that pushes me over time. Anyone have tips for moving from working it out on paper to doing it mentally? Is it just a matter of doing it enough times on paper that it becomes more intuitive?

almost fell for the confusing necessary for sufficient trap on answer c

on this one wouldn't it be easier to just use intuition than to reason... it would take me well over 5 minutes to figure out the conditional diagramming whereas the answer is pretty obvious if I just look at the stimulus. I guess if I do that too much, my "common sense" could fail me and I'd end up falling for a trap.

Ugh I'm so annoyed... If I were approaching this answer intuitively without thinking in lawgic terms A would have been the obvious answer, but it gets so convoluted when I try to diagram and end up tripping myself up over the all before some issue (which I now understand why it's not applicable here).