I'd work on another more all-inclusive strategy as a backup plan if this strategy can't be done.

First question where I had the confidence to choose the right answer without reading all of the ACs lol.

I'd been hit-or-miss with these. Decided to try and not map out the lawgic, and just try to intuitively use POE based off my understanding of the stim. I was correct and quicker than I have been, Try it out.

Simulates test order? Which is random. . .You can build drills with your preferred difficulty if you want to though.

Best strategy for me seems to be trying to predict the flaw, but being open to the ACs.

Same! C is a very 'good' trap answer, because it seems like a more major flaw if we interpret it wrong. Which I did.

29 seconds here.

Practice reading convoluted 'bad' writing. . . Modern critical philosophy and/or literary theory could be good practice (This is coming from an English major). Read slowly, though, and try to pay close attention to what is exactly being written.

The struggle towards understanding where you went wrong is substantive for learning.

Disagree. . . Thoroughly expressing why an answer is a wrong answer is very important, especially when it could seem like a right answer. The pretending is showing how one could be fooled by an answer choice.

It's not wrong. . . It's used sufficiently, but it wasn't necessary to use it that way.

College writing instructor here. . . I thought the same thing. I laughed when I realized it was the right answer.

Agreed. Basic lawgic is mostly good for clarifying potentially confusing/new concepts, I.e., necessity v. sufficiency, and/or learning the basics of logic/argument forms.

But, especially with the time constraints of the actual test, writing out the lawgic of every question would be very inefficient.

I find it way easier to conceive these questions as using POE to eliminate every not necessary answer choice. It just seems easier to see what isn't necessary than what is, especially when you have to consider that the NA may be a SA too.

Don't rely on AI to read for you. . . reading helps overall performance on LSAT, especially RC. Reading the lesson, summarizing in your head, is built-in practice for RC. So, at least, try to understand yourself, before you bring in AI assistance. Further, AI is not as great at summarizing text as it's marketed, it will leave out a lot of nuance, and complex nuance is what makes LR details difficult. Just a suggestion.