I keep accidentally ignoring the "except" and finding the one that most weakens... wtf

Ok literally picked B with 20 seconds to spare and didn't even think it was hard, only to discover its a 5 star difficulty. Why did this question register as straightforward when virtually everything else has been a total enigma...

This feels like a definitively easier category of question than some of the others... I guess I'll take what I can get

@AlexanderAlizadeh all within time HOW

5/5 but took me an hour. Literally 60 minutes. If the LSAT was untimed I'd get a 170+. As of now, however, i'm feeling cooked

I'm at the point of being able to answer a lot of these questions right, but only after 5 minutes of analysis / lawgic diagramming (which is itself not feeling like a particularly well-honed or intuitive skill set in general for me). I'm feeling a little discouraged about how to work through even the most complex questions in just a minute and 20 seconds.... Anyone else feeling this way?

Did anyone else try to chain the two inferences?

/Main street location --> +10 ---> Location Last Rented

It didn't end up yielding a conclusion that mattered for finding the right answer, but I'm confused by the fact that the explanation video didn't chain them because I thought we were supposed to whenever possible.

I got the right answer but it took me 5 minutes of processing the stim, diagramming it in lawgic, and then processing what I had diagrammed. I identified B immediately, but 5 minutes had already elapsed. I fundamentally don't understand how we're expected to move through these questions in under a minute AND also diagram.

Is it just me or is the way he's mapping out the lawgic and coming to conclusions via the diagrams significantly different than the way we were taught in the foundational lessons....

6/6. These feel easy which is reassuring...

@7Sage - The conclusion of the final, longer chained conditional is tricky and this lesson doesn't really acknowledge it. That final conclusion statement requires a command of "negate the sufficient" and while I did end up realizing that on my own, I think it would be helpful for the video to explicitly show the step of translating the final conclusion into lawgic. These skills are starting to build on each other and our command of them is still tenuous at this point in the course.

It's strange and frustrating that this lesson doesn't teach you how to actually diagram this one correctly in Lawgic. Very difficult to be told we were wrong, not be shown how to map this out accurately, and then be thrown into the quiz in the next section.