Firstly, keep in mind that these RC sections are materially designed to be particularly tough during the regular time allotted. The whole point of the training is so that you dont always have to rigorously parse through every single line in order to understand whats going on in the passage. While that might be necessary when going through a specific question about context or a specific part of the passage I found it most helpful to employ these tips.

Theres always going to be at least 1 passage that is just not clicking for you. The content will seem hard, or impossible to understand. You NEED to recognize that they are all written in a way in which you CAN understand the argument without necessarily understanding the content to a full extent. Remember that there is a distinction between understand the general structure of an argument, and understanding the make-up of certain organism structures (or any random thing they try to confuse you with). That being said, once you understand the structure of the argument use your time to understand the KEY points. Practice identifying the Premise, Conclusions, Subconclusions, Other Arguments, and everything else JY talk about in these lessons. Get into the habit of knowing where the argument indicators are and understanding the FLOW of the authors argument. In practice that looks like this:

Although many people think dogs are the best animal, critics have recently supported the notion that they in fact are not. This is because a dogs inability to grab things with his paws the way monkeys can is severely limiting. These critics are mistaken, grabbing things with your paws is not the only effective way to grab things. I am going to show you how the dogs ability to grab things with their teeth discredit this claim and prove them to be the superior house pet.

Recognize the shifts in the argument as it flows. Be able to understand who is saying what, what the point of it is and youll be able to see a dramatic increase in the understanding. When you first start reading you may think that the author is going to disprove the people that think dogs are the best because he says "although" but then you see this although coming in to play with the disagreement of the critic... they then support the initial although. This is a really simple example but I can almost guarantee you that the tricky LSAT writing employ sneaky argument flow to trick you and hide it behind tricky content. DO NOT be fooled by the flow. They rarely ask you to explain something that is purely content based without relating it to the argument. In the times that they do ask you to explain something content based remember this: THE ANSWER IS ALWAYS IN THE PASSAGE. They may explain how a scientific process works such as "To successfully dispose of the toxic waste the company must dig at least 300 meters and no more than 1800 meters beneath sea level. This is because water under the surface has the highest salt concentration at these levels and the company can ensure that this salinization will neutralize the chemicals without risk of spread"

They may ask you "which of the following would the author agree is a proper procedure"

Now, notice this doesnt really have to do with the argument, but youll be able to find it in the text.

Bottom line: RECOGNIZE and PRACTICE the difference between the actual content and the argument structure. You will never understand every single different passage of content but you should be able to MASTER the argument structure. Good luck and I hope this helped.

I chose A because it introduces an alternative motivation for the reporters to stay there. Weakening = introducing can someone explain where I am wrong.

Are we assuming that a mitigated risk for energy shortage can be added as a benefit for B? I thought were strengthening the existing benefits #help