I figured I'd post this as a discussion rather than a comment on the quiz page since it will be seen by more. I have 2 questions regarding the quiz. The first is about question one which is

A person is not guilty of an offense unless his liability is based on conduct which includes a voluntary act not performed under duress I decided to take the first idea (not guilty), negate it, and make it my sufficient condition. So I have G---->UD/. This translates to english as "a person is guilty of a crime if they were not under duress". The contrapositive would be UD--->G/. This translates back to "if a person was under duress than they are not guilty". JY translated the ideas a G/ for not guilty and LC for liable of conduct. This means his translation was G---->LC as in "if they were guilty they were liable for conduct. Contrapositive would be LC/----> G/ which is of course "if they aren't liable for thier conduct they aren't guilty of the crime". So I'm not really sure why we ignore the not in the 2nd part of the sentence (not under duress) but don't ignore it in the first (not guilty). How do I know when I need to account for this "not" and when I can ignore it?

The second question I had for this quiz is from question 6. That sentence reads as

I won’t stop tickling you on the nose until the leprechauns from my dream stop nibbling my toes with their teeth that have the old fashioned braces to correct their severe overbite, a condition endemic to the Aberdeen leprechaun population, of my dreams. For this one I took the 2nd Idea and made it the sufficient. I translated it to N/ for stop nibbling and then applied to the rule so it became N. Then I took the first part of the sentence and made it T. so N--->T and T/----> N/. This translates to english as "if leprechauns are nibbling, I'm tickling" and the contrapositive would be "If I'm not tickling then the leprechauns aren't nibbling". JY's translation was T--->/L and L---->T/. Again this is totally different than mine and we have ignored the "stop" in the 2nd part of the sentence. I can't seem to figure out why that is. Why can we just chalk that entire 2nd part of the sentence up as an "L" but other times we have to account for the "not", "stops", or "won't"?

So I just finished the Nicole Hopkins webinar on RC and felt like a lot of it made sense. But as I try to work through an RC passage on my own using her method, I'm finding that so much seems unclear. I decided to use the first passage of my most recent PT (PT54). Below is a run down of what I annotated and where I ran into problems. I'm hoping I can figure this method out because it seems helpful, but ultimately the method so far seems to leave me with more questions than answers. If I constantly need to second guess and wonder if I'm correctly annotating everything then I will only be wasting time that I could otherwise be using to answer questions.

So the first thing I annotate is the very first word of the passage which is "The Internet". I box and tail the "The internet" with the tail being the explanation of what the internet is in order to show it's a what. Next, I square "Internet Users" on line 3 to show who. Here is where I find my first unknown. Do I need to [bracket] the "throughout the world" found on line 4 to show a where? Next I bracket line 5's "national and other political borders" because borders are technically places. Not totally sure if that should be bracketed. Finally the last thing I annotate in paragraph one is the "borders" found on the last line of the paragraph line 9. I bracket this once again because borders are technically places.

The first sentence of paragraph 2 seems like it should have some type of annotation but I can't decide so I move on to line 12 where I circle "presupposes" to indicate when. On line 13 I carrot "But" to show a pivot. "Borders" on line 15 gets a bracket again. Next on line 16 I square "government" to signify who. The next annotation comes on line 19 where I carrot the "But". That is the last annotation I give for paragraph two even though it feels like I've missed something between line 20 and 29.

Paragraph 3 opens with a box and tail around "legal domain" and the words that follow to indicate a what. On line 33 I bracket "country" again to show where but I feel unsure if this is right. This is done again with "country" on line 34. Line 39 receives a carrot to indicate a pivot with the word "but". Now here is where I get really confused. Line 43 contains the word "Norway". Does this receive a bracket to indicate where or does this receive a box because we're talking about Norway as an actor or agent? I have the same issue with "Brazil" on line 44 and 45. Line 45 receives a Q in the margin to indicate the question asked. Line 48 receives a carrot to indicate the pivot word "otherwise". "Country" on line 49 receives yet another bracket to show where but again I am unsure of this being correct.

Paragraph 4's first annotation comes on line 53 and 54 where I box "electronic communication" and underline what follows to indicate what electronic communication is. "French" on line 57 gets squared in order to indicate a who and then Canada and Japan both receive brackets to on line 59 to indicate where. Lastly I put a Q in the margins of line 59 so that I can indicate a question was asked.

When I had finished all of this I was unsure if I did things correctly and felt that I definitely missed things. I decided to go to the first question and only then did I realize that I was so focused on annotating that I didn't really read the passage. Because I read looking for things to annotation, I ended up having no idea what I actually had just read. Is there a resource, link, or place where I can view properly annotated passages done by others? I don't want to give up on this method after one try but I just don't see how I could annotate everything correctly in under 4 minutes.

I've heard it's a must watch but for some reason I can't find it on the webinar page

I got this question correct but really don't know why. I look at the answers and they just look like gibberish. I try to break the words down and make the answer sound similar, but I still have no clue what most those answers are saying. I went through the lessons on weakening questions but it didn't seem to help for this type of super wordy question at all. Anyone else struggle with the real wordy weaken questions? Any tips or advice?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-22-section-4-question-21/

I can access PF problem sets 4/5 and view the questions and printable versions of the questions, but when I open up the answer key and click explanation, there is a lock. That lock takes me to the LSAT Ultimate+ upgrade page. Are sets 4/5 Ultimate+ problem sets? Usually an Ultimate+ problem set is locked from the syllabus page. For instance, once I click into the PF Problem Set 4 page, I can click on the "Lesson12 of 13" link underneath the "Parallel Flaw Questions Problem Set 4" title which shows me that PF Problem Sets 6/7 are locked for me and that they require Ultimate+. So are 4/5/6/7 all Ultimate+ sets and for some reason I'm getting partial access to 4/5 or am I given access to 4/5 as a regular Ultimate member but for some reason getting locked out of the explanations because of a technical error?

In JY's breakdown of this statement:

All dinosaurs that hunt its prey can run, swim and fly. Dinosaurs that cannot run, cannot swim or cannot fly are easy to catch and delicious to eat. Nothing can catch the Fastasaurus. He diagrams "Dinosaurs that cannot run, cannot swim or cannot fly are easy to catch and delicious to eat" as R/---> E and D, S/---> E and D, F/---> E and D. When it was actually drawn out R/, S/, and F/ were all stacked and each pointed to a single E and D. But this doesn't make sense to me. Isn't it the case that an "And" in the sufficient should be treated as "A and B----->" and an "And" in the necessary be treated as "A ----->B, A----->C, A-----> D" but in a stacked notation? Why does JY do the opposite? He stacks and separates the sufficient "AND" and makes the necessary "And" linear.