Thank you for the advice!

That is a great point about the timing

I was in the same boat as you, started studying in March for the June test, but then switched to the August bc I am better at the LR and RC questions.

I found the V1 material to be more helpful than the V2 tbh. It has more of the formal logic stuff that i guess is more geared towards LG material, but I found that this understanding of existential Q's and things of that nature to be helpful in understand conditionals and Logical Reasoning as a whole.

Just my opinion though

Happy to have helped!

No problem.

Best wishes for your continued LSAT preparation

I forgot to mention, this differs from Groups 1&2 because those conditional groups deal with precise indicators, for those groups, if you identify conditional indicators that necessitate 1&2 translations, they are always going to be indicators of sufficient (group 1) and necessary(group 2), so the phrase which follows these group 1&2 indicators will always be sufficient or necessary depending on which group it is

That's the trick for Groups 3&4, you don't necessarily "need" to slot them in any specific group (sufficient or necessary), because of the contrapositive. As long as you do the negation correct, all you need to do is identify the phrases being used in the conditional. You can then use your discretion to put EITHER phrase in the sufficient or conditional, as long as you negate the phrase you put in the necessary. For Group 3, the same rules apply, but instead of negating and putting whichever phrase you choose in the necessary, you put it in the sufficient.

Just remember to know the contrapositives and to correctly negate the phrases, and you will be golden.

I am by no means a pro at this, but it seems you are making it much more difficult by translating back from Group 4 to Group 1

I would just look at it like: flowers in garden----->/bloom in winter

bloom in winter------->/flowers in garden

You need to negate one and place it in the necessary, while then slotting the other non-negated into the sufficient

you don't necessarily need to use the if, then premise of conditional logic for this specific example, since you already know its a conditional phrase in Group 4, if you don't need to, but i could be wrong on this