Hi I would love to join as well!

I didn't have time to look at the answers choices fully because I spent time reading the stimulus carefully. I had 14 seconds left to answer when I didn't finish reading the stimulus.

Are there any tips to get through the stimulus while understanding it more quickly? I feel like if I read quicker, I don't retain the information of the stimulus.

Applauding you for recognizing and expressing your thought process.

Yes: Use whatever the author is saying rather than other party's statement.

I am dealing with the same problem, and one day I was literally complaining that I might have a learning disability and messaged my doctors LOL. What is helping me is that I started to read a book during my train ride to work (1.25hr commute one way) to help condition my mind to focus on reading.

I'm having a tough time with just reading everything. I have to back track like 15 times to just grasp what the stimulus and choices are saying. And I have to read it slowly. I spend like 20 minutes on a question, no matter how short it is. Is this normal?

I chose "B" because it was the one of the choices that interacted with the key term "hot spot". Though the choice seems like a far reach, it is the choice that is most strongly supported by the premises. "E" interacted with the term "hot spot" but made no connection to the stimulus.

"A" use of "only" was too strong for my liking.

The argument is very subtle.

For the Aladdin question, the context notes that "there is nothing else to reveal about this character." However the augmenting point, the conclusion, claims that there is something to reveal when the new adaptation gives "new" backstory to Aladdin. Then this idea is supported in the last statement.

For arguments in the LSAT, would arguments always be in first person of the author?

Or would there third-person arguments like "some scientists claim X.... But historians claim Y" and focus on the historians point of view?

#help (Added by Admin)

I believe the first statement just signifies a "fact". Remove the phrase "since the industrial revolution", and you have the statement "Environmentalists have discovered that there has been an increase in air pollution." This is not an argument/conclusive structure but "support/evidence" to something else--to the conclusion in the next statement/hypothesis.