I just want to know why they made a big deal about the noun and subject and predicate and all that. Lets be honest, on an actual test, who truly has time to break down a passage like that to get to the right answer? They talk to much with a bunch of filler words in the explanation and that throws me off even more.

So I am thrown off by "B" being the correct answer. I do not think the explanation made much sense to me. Can someone explain. How was I supposed to assume that An fMRI has the potential to compromise patient privacy in circumstances in which a genetic profile would not when the passage states, "Like a genetic profile, a functional magnetic-resonance image (fMRI) of the brain can contain information that a patient wishes to keep private."

That sentence is saying they both do the same thing in the way of compromising patient privacy...or that is how I took it, so I definitely did not rely on B as the answer....anyone got a better explanation to this rather than this person's explanation?

This person said, "(B) tells us that, considering what we know to be true about fMRIs, there are situations where an fMRI could potentially compromise a patient’s privacy. In those same situations, a genetic profile does not have this potential."

I am not following in the way this person breaks it down.

How long are you all studying or will have studied before taking the LSAT? I am not advancing as fast as I would want, and I am critical of myself due to studying over 4 months and scoring barely in the 150s.

Following, to be honest, I hate the conditional reasoning questions.

I am new and suck at this, so if anyone can shed some light on what I am doing wrong by adding me, I would be forever thankful!