I can easily identify the conclusion based on the keywords. After I recognize this, should I stop trying to analyze the rest of the stimulus for timing purposes?

Why are we negating so much? What is this going to do?

Do you suggest writing all the lawgic out in a line like you did or making a list of it? For this question, they all strung together nicely in the order in which they were stated, but I'm sure this is not going to be the case for all the questions.

I am having a hard time understanding why a tiger being a mammal is an assumption. That is a fact, a tiger is in fact a mammal. Are we supposed to dismiss all prior knowledge we have?