You are just flipping the sufficient and necessary conditions here. Based on the prompt, 'any' indicates the sufficient so 'is plausible' is by default the necessary. You cannot flip them to make them seem like they make more sense, you just have to take it as written and rely on the indicators to point to what is what. Honestly, when I do them I do not even look at what they are. I just picked out the indicator words, and based on that decide what is sufficient or necessary and diagram, then flip and negate for contrapositive. It is really just about memorizing the indicators to pick our sufficient or necessary, not reasoning with why it makes sense or doesn't. So, never translate the sentence by flipping it around. If it helps, you can sub 'any' for 'if' but you cannot change what comes before or after the indicator.

So here you could change it to

Some people claim that IF there is an internally consistent scientific theory, THEN it is plausible.

ICST→P

Does that help?

No, this would not be correct. If we were to diagram it as you wrote it, it would be:

/mixed ---> /# increase

This does not match the conditional logic or the contrapositive. To diagram, you have to take it as the prompt reads. Here, you are negating both terms which is not consistent with the prompt. This would be okay to do if you flipped them as well since that you be stating the contrapositive, but you did not flip them, only negated both terms which is not logically consistent or equivalent to the prompt. it can only be worked as

Mixed ---> # increase

and the contrapositive written as

/# increase ---> /Mixed

(If the number of beneficial soil bacteria does not increase, then plant material is not mixed into the garden soil).

I am not sure if this follows logically or not. In the first part, eating tofu -> being vegan, doesn't line up with what is written, since the first sentence states that the conditional relationship is between eating meat and being vegan, not between eating tofu and being vegan. I think it would be:

If one does not eat meat, then one is a vegan.

This would be diagrammed as:

Does not eat meat --> Is a Vegan or /EM---> V

Then the contrapositive would be

/V --> EM (if you are not a vegan, you must eat meat)

The issue with yours is you are equating eating tofu to not eating meat which is not substantial enough. People who are non vegan can also enjoy tofu, and people who are vegan may not like tofu. So saying that to be vegan you can't eat meat, does not match with eating tofu, since people who eat meat may also enjoy tofu. For this to work, the claim would need to be only people who are vegan eat tofu / non vegans never eat tofu.

Does this make sense? Also, if I am wrong please correct me haha.

To maybe clear up your confusion - the conclusion is part of the argument that the author is making. So, the conclusion about Michelangelo is included in the prompt and is apart of what the author is arguing, based off of the premise given in the first sentence. Not using outside information applies more to us as the test taker when looking over potential answer choices. So, for example, if an answer to a question with this prompt talked about another painter, or had information regarding the brushes used - it would probably be incorrect or irrelevant since those things are not being discussed in the prompt - and using the prompt we have no basis to evaluate those additional claims.

I thought this as well. Importantly something I have noticed - sometimes there will be both a premise and conclusion contained in the same sentence. This drill does not seem to separate them when they are in one sentence together, but it's good to remember that it can happen.

What I have largely been told is this (especially when starting out with LSAT prep doing drills and practice questions). Do not be so concerned with getting the answer right or wrong. It is much more important to understand WHY you are right or wrong. I think of it this way: if I got a question right, but I cannot explain why I picked the answer or what makes it right: what have I learned from it? How will I be able to replicate that going forward with other questions? Similarly, if I got something wrong but I know exactly why my answer was wrong, and why the right answer is correct, I have learned something that I can apply in the future. I would say at this stage it is perfectly okay to get it wrong on your first attempt, and then correct it in blind review because then you have learned something that will stick with you.

I highly agree with this. I did this once on a set of practice problems, and got it wrong because I found a conclusion and stopped reading it, but it ended up being a sub conclusion. The very next sentence was the main conclusion, that I would have easily identified had I read on. Additionally, I've also seen some talk of there even being an instance of multiple sub conclusions that build to a main conclusion. Not sure if that situation is very common, but it is always a good idea to read the entire stimulus and stop to anticipate every time before looking at answers. I personally like to identify what each sentence is even on main point questions to have the process down for identifying all aspects to make it easier when doing role and describe questions. I find identifying each part really helps.

Aha! I thought something felt off on the initial stimulus! Interesting how even though I didn't know it was cut off I was still able to realize something about it wasn't right. I'll take that as a good sign that studying has started to pay off in recognizing what stimulus and answer choices typically look like through my anticipation. Great job of explaining this topic! also very engaging for the audience. 10/10 video