I appreciate the curve and the % likelihood of certain scorers selecting the correct answer, it helps me view myself in the context of other LSAT takers. This is a data question of sorts, but would it be possible for the software to keep track of our answers and provide an aggregate estimate of a potential score? To illustrate, what if there was a "my stats" tab that said something like, "you've answered X amount of questions identified as difficulty 4/5 and on average select the same answer that a person with a 1XX score is likely to have." There could be an option to change the time frame too, "in the last month you have...", "in the last week...". This may be too complicated and unnecessary, but it's food for thought. This would definitely help boost my confidence as I am learning more and becoming more comfortable with RC and LR. Could be a neat feature!

I recommend doing a short bulleted list on a sheet of scratch paper and practicing not using too much space on said paper. Remote test takers can have six (6) sheets of scratch paper (and I plan to use most of that on mapping out logical reasoning questions).

Realizing that the content of the dubious claim doesn't actually matter. We don't need to know what the author thinks is dubious, we just need to understand the fact that the author is rejecting Arnot's conclusion because of a purported weakening of a premise. If we ignore the content of the "dubious" claim (the government can be trusted to act in the public's interest) then it becomes more clear that the form of weakening another person's argument (by showing weakness in one of their points/premises) does not mean we cannot nonetheless accept their conclusion.

The average time that type of question appears in the LR section.

For me, this argument started to make some more sense when I drew it out in the diagram like so. As you may recall, some does not imply most. Therefore, some must be less than half. So out of my five As, two of them are left for the improper conclusion A ←s→ C.

Most A are B (A ‑m→ B) is illustrated by 3/5 As being Bs. Most B are C (B ‑m→ C) is illustrated by 2 of those 3 Bs being C. What remains is A ←s→ C, and the "some As" (the 2 remaining) cannot imply any C variable. Remember, the "some" As must be the 2 remaining of the 5 As, because most of them (3) were used to imply Bs.

A → B → C

A ←s→?

A → B

A ←s→?

A → B → C

I hope this helps!

Negating does not mean you are taking the entire contrapositive, and taking the contrapositive requires negating. See the example below.

Mittens is a cat. Cats like to sunbathe. Mittens likes to sunbathe.

This can be illustrated as

P1: M → C

P2: C → S

C: M → S

If we take the contrapositive of the conclusion, we are taking both M and S, negating them, and switching their order.

/S → /M (If something does not like to sunbathe, then that something is not Mittens.)

However, if we just negate an antecedent or consequent, this would look different. Let's negate C (cat).

P1: M → /C

If Mittens is not a cat, then we cannot conclude that Mittens likes to sunbathe given the information in the premises. Or we could also negate S, which would create the conclusion that Mittens does not like to sunbathe.

I hope this helped!