I've done PT's when there's questions in them I've already done. If anything, doing the same question again after a while can be beneficial because it can help you reinforce your learning. If, for example, you get a question wrong two times in a row, it might be indicative that your base understanding needs adjustment.

I'm in! @gsheldon709542

A tip i've learned is that if the answer choice cedes the conclusion, then it is most likely wrong

I'm a literal LSAT god

parsing grammar helps. For strengthen questions, I like to view it as "what answer helps the conclusion make sense" Once the it becomes a lot easier to see the answers. From that point on I use POE to find out which one helps and which other four dont help.

Cool.

They done did my boy Jocko dirty

True, but it that seems like a more farfetched assumption than the fact that an actor probably just focused on their lines and no one elses.

I viewed having a copy of hamlet, the actual play and a script of the play to be two different things.

Yes! It also doesnt explain at all why the beaks got smaller - just that they did,

I wouldn't worry too much about timing at this stage. At least I'm not. The more practice you do in getting the answer right, the faster you should ultimately become.

MORE PRACTICE=FASTER TIMES

Context is something that just adds additional information to the passage. Usually it can be another person/groups claim that the author is disputing.

Premise is always attached to a conclusion. It provides support for it.

no, the term "Always" indicates this falls under the group 2 translation rule: the subject that follows "always" is the necessary condition.

1. Identify the conditional indicator: Always

2. Identify main points: Imperial Palaces in the Tang Dynasty (simplified to just Imperial Palaces as "In the Tang Dynasty" is a modifier), glass windows

3. Imperial Palaces - IP, Glass Windows - GW

4. Apply the Translation rule: IP→GW

5. translate to english: "If there is an imperial palace in the Tang Dynasty, it has Glass Windows."

Contrapositive: /GW→/IP. "If it does not have glass windows, it is not an imperial palace".

don't even think about which one is the sufficient/necessary condition. Just identify the two main subjects, you negate one of them, then whichever one you negate, make it either the sufficient condition or the necessary condition based on the identifier.

hey, my thoughts are that those would be good assumptions! When we think about the probability of those assumptions being true, we don't really know. Mr. Fat Cat could love salmon which would make it so he is more likely to have gotten into the trash. On the other hand, Maybe Mr. Fat Cat HATES salmon, so why would he have knocked over the trashcan? The point is - we don't know. Therefore, the more arbitrary an assumption is, that is, not based in truth (like tigers are mammals) the more it weakens the overall argument.