This JY lesson is gold

I used Domain + Rule Framework for question #5. Would this be plausible? I took the domain as group of tenants and created a embedded conditional statement as the rule. A->(B-->C) or

Domain: Group of Tenants

Rule:

Abylaws --> (30sigs--> Put to vote).

Abylaws + 30 sigs --> Put to vote

This helped me to obtain my conclusion. I know this isn't necessarily the way that JY/prep reading teaches it but found it much quicker to interpret my own reasoning similar to the domain + rule Framework.

If negating the answer choice would completely ruin the argument then that is a required assumption of the argument. Hopefully this helps :)

I am going to score a 160+ on the LSAT this year. I am confident this is possible. All things are possible through Christ who strenghtheneth me.

No pain, No gain. Your brain is not a muscle, but it is like a muscle. Therefore, treat your learning almost like working out. Get to the point of fatigue even past fatigue and then call it a day to recover from LSAT problems. Your brain will start to focus for longer durations if you practice this method.

Think only about the stimulus. We don't know this island. it could be a huge island with miles of space. Stick to the stimulus. But, in the wise words of Socrates. "I know nothing". I got this answer wrong too and chose A for not interpreting the stimulus correctly.

I'm interested

So let me get this right? There's only one right answer?