To whoever cares: One thing that is helping me with speed on MC questions is to find the conclusion. That sounds like a given, and it is. More often than not these question types follow the same rules. Look for transition words.

This stimulus states:

"but this process can be awkward for both the patients and the physicians, SINCE" (followed by premises)

Now look at the answer choices.

C is almost a carbon copy of that.

"This process of obtaining a second medical opinion can be awkward for those involved."

All you're adding is what the process is and the other answers (the incorrect ones have "assumptions")

A) - not seek a second opinion? what?

B) - essentially restating a premise given. Not the conclusion.

D) - uncomfortable? It mentions that in a premise. AND always? that language is too strong. You are adding stuff in which makes it incorrect.

E) - It focuses on the patient being concerned about offending physician and completely ignoring the fact that it is awkward for both parties.

I read a lot of comments about not doing very well in these skill builders so I wanted to share something that made me do good on them.

1: Read the statement and take a minute to process what was just said.

2: write out what the statement is using in lawgic.

3: negate the statement by adding "it is not the case that..." but I prefer to use "it is not true that.."

4: Take a little to process what was just said.

5: Translate to lawgic.

Lets do a quick example.

All non-water breathing mammals have limbs.

1: okay, all non water breathing mammals have limbs. Got it.

2: using lawgic this means: nwbm ---> limbs

3: Lets negate: It is not true that all non-water breathing mammals have limbs.

4: What does this mean? It means that some non water breathing mammals do not have limbs. Why? Because we were told that it wasnt true ALL non water breathing mammals have limbs. Therefor, some must not have limbs.

5: Lets translate some non water breathing mammals do not have limbs to lawgic: We know that for some we use <--s-->

therefor NWBM <--s--> /L

What does that mean if we read it? well some non-water breathing mammals do not have limbs and some that do not have limbs are non water breathing mammals. (since some uses <--s-->)

I hope this helps guys!

add me please

For anyone that may need help with this kind of question:

When questions are like this P ---> C then the premise will always be the sufficient condition and the conclusion will be the necessary condition.

Because if P is true then the conclusion is true.

If there is ever only 1 premise and 1 conclusion, then the answer will be merely a restatement or a restatement but in the contrapositive. The lsat will try to trick you by using different words.