This question is bonkers

this question is getting skipped 10000% of the time

Same here. I'm curious. From my own practice tests/drills there is not time to do this for every question. I usually only ever map when I get the feeling from the stimulus that it is going to be very formal logic heavy, or that a quick logic translation will work. Usually, per LR section, I'll Map 2-4 times maximum during the time.

got it right :) took me 5 min :(

#feedback

This one got me for sure. This one is particularly frustrating because within the broader context of considering plenty of other PAI and MSS LSAT questions the conflation of "writes well" to "qualified" seems like the exact type of slip-up that the LSAT writers would target. It also seems like a conflation that these video explanations would call "ridiculous". I am now having a hard time deciphering when it is ok and not ok to make slight leaps in verbiage because the LSAT seems to inconsistently punish it. Does anybody have tips for this?

ahh sneaking this little guy in here, sneaky sneaky

example. If I said that all blue birds have sharp claws, that can be translated in Lawgic to BB-> SC. Stating that the bird in question is not a blue bird (/BB) is failing the sufficient condition of being a blue bird. This DOES not mean that we can conclude automatically, that this bird also does not have sharp claws. It may or may not have sharp claws, we have no clue. There may be other bird species besides blue birds that have sharp claws, the original statement simply says that ALL blue birds have sharp claws, not that ONLY blue birds have sharp claws. This is what it means that denying the sufficient (not blue bird) draws no valid conclusion about the necessary condition (whether the bird has sharp claws or not).

political corruption is sufficient to assume that there is revolution (PC----> R). But the absence of political corruption is NOT sufficient to know that there is no revolution. This can be seen formally in the fact that the equivalent of (PC----->R) is (/R-----> /PC) and NOT (/PC----->/R). Hope this helps. You most likely made this mistake if you arrived at that conclusion. In applicable terms, this differentiation is important because the logical rules set out allows there to be societies that experience revolution for reasons outside of political corruption, and in your version it eliminates that possibility