"Contrary to the investigator's reasonable belief..." satisfies the second rule.

I think you need to negate "/prohibit." So with the superset being Beresford Residence, you can simply think of it in this way: /purpose → prohibit. Contrapositive: /prohibit → purpose. You cannot satisfy the necessary condition and have the argument remain valid. I know this is a few months old, but this should follow one of the invalid argument forms in later lessons. I think this is right, anyways.

I will get a 155+ on November LSAT!

Is there any way you can delay your test? I assume you're not going to school until Fall '23?

@alexhgantt28 said:

What’s the low resolution method?

https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/the-memory-method-for-improving-lsat-reading-comprehension/

how long did it take you to get from -12 to -3/-5?

Play around with the settings as well. I tend to do better when I had large font and medium line height when i'm reading the passage. Then I would switch to small line height and small font when doing the questions. This allowed me to quickly eliminate obvious wrong answers because I could see all the answers at once. I think i'm hovering around 9:30-10 min a passage (some of the easier ones are around 8:30). Which I started around 13 or so minutes. Though I'm not 100% on the more difficult passages, but it is a work in progress. I still need to actually play around with the settings in lawhub as well to see what works best since that is where we take our test.

I would like to join as well! Aiming for April 2023.

I believe it is a sub-conclusion as it supports the main conclusion at the end, which is distinguished by "it is clear..." I got tripped up on this and marked it incorrect on the BR.