Why isn't this correct for number 4:

Small animals can move more rapidly than large animals can.

Small --> move more rapidly than large animals

An animal can be small and not move more rapidly as a large animal

Small, -Move more...

Is this: No graduate level philosophy courses are available to undergraduates. (G → /U)

Equivalent to this:

If a grad level phil class, then it is not available to undergrads

Is this right for number 2:

No one can eat a hamburger without drinking beer.

-Drinking beer --> -Eat a hamburger

Some can not drink a beer and eat a hamburger

-Drink beer ←s→ Eat a hamburger

I translated number five incorrectly because I didn't know that everyone could function as a condition. Is it the case that every time the LSAT mentions "everyone" it refers to a claim about all people and should therefore be translated as a sufficient condition? Does this question make sense lol?

For question three and others, I'm getting confused as to when I should do a premise vs create a conditional statement. Often when I create a conditional statement it seems to confuse me more.

Opera companies have to produce the most popular operas, unless they receive funding from the National Endowment for the Arts.

( O --> popular )

contra: -popular --> -opera

Funding

-Funding --> Opera --> popular

Is the contrapositive correct here?

Any journalism that provides accurate information on a subject about which there is considerable interest is good journalism.

accurate info on a subject --> good journalism

-good journalism --> -accurate info on a subject

(I did not split it up into two, is that also okay?)

Hi, this is what I did for the problem. Did I translate the "or" connection incorrectly? Other than that, did I translate it correctly?

Joffrey must kill Bran or Robb. If he doesn't kill Arya, he cannot kill Robb. He cannot kill both Arya and Sansa. If he doesn't kill Robb, he must kill Jon.

B --> -R

R --> -B

_

-A --> -R

A --> -S (S --> -A)

-R --> J

_

B --> -R --> -A --> S --> J

-J --> -S --> A --> R --> -B

I feel like I'm getting tripped up on is the fact that answer choice D and the stimulus both used the word considered. This made me think that the answer to B was incorrect as they are asking them to reject his argument which seems different as not considering an argument. Am I reading too much into the words and not looking at the form?

How did you make the assumption that the conclusion in E involved extensive research. I was more so focused on that wording being included?

Ik we go over the different wording types, but is there anything else I can do to prepare for this convoluted language? I knew the answer but I felt like it was hardest to understand what exactly answer choice E was saying.

These questions seem to be a lot more intuitive if you just scrutinize each answer

I feel like I intuitively understand these questions. I will read the correct AC and then choose it immediately once I read it. Ik this is overconfidence, but why is it that some questions come easier to others because I FLOPPED on SA questions but my confidence is back.

I find that I am doing significantly better on NA than SA. Is there a particular reason or phenomenon for this, or was I just having an off week last week? Is it common for students to struggle more with one assumption type v. another?

i have been writing down the lawgic on a piece of paper, when it comes time for the actual LSAT would you recommend using scratch paper or does after time lawgic becomes so intuitive that I wouldn't need to write it down?

another thing about E was that it mentions the lives of characters, when the stimulus never mentions this fact. This is what helped me to eliminate that answer choice, carefully scrutinizing each answer choice for the correct word choice (ex. browsing the web vs. relying on the web) has helped a lot not just on these questions but on all of LR as a whole.

For chaining a contrapositive, I have created the following example:

If one is tall then one is smart if one is smart then they have a big brain (T --> S --> B)

Contra: If one does not have a big brain then one is not smart and therefore is not tall (/B --> /S --> /T)

and

If one is annoying then they talk a lot, if one talks a lot then they are not smart (A --> T --> /S)

Contra: If one is smart then they do not talk a lot, and they are not annoying (S --> /T --> /A)

Are these examples correct or incorrect? How does one create a contrapositive of a chain or is one unable to do so.

Thanks and let me know.

Would this be logically equivalent:

If one is not a cat then they are a reptile

(Lawgic: /C —> R)

Contra:

If one is not a reptile then they are a cat.

(Lawgic: /R —> C)

I was struggling with MSS but I think I get it, my issue is time. Often, I will have to read the stimulus two or three times to understand it, but in the end I'll get the right answer. Am I slow? Are there any tips you have for understanding it quicker? What I liked about main conclusion questions is that I didn't have to read the whole thing. I feel like in MSS the stimulus is more dense and when you get to the harder questions I find the passage to be really tricky to understand.

Why is it important to know which question stem matches up to which concepts? Is it just so were reminded of the tips and tricks of that specific concept?