They should add another rule to scan for no, cannot, not, or will fail. I didn't recognize them and did not negate the idea.

Negation accounts for nuance 

When I do blind reviews, I do worse than when I am timed

So, can rhetorical questions serve as conclusions, or are they just premises?

Here is a classic example of how a rhetorical question might show up in an LSAT Logical Reasoning stimulus, according to SAGE AI:

The Stimulus: "The city council claims that building a new highway will reduce congestion. But how can building more roads reduce traffic when it simply encourages more people to drive? Therefore, the council's plan is fundamentally flawed."

So if I take the test in January, I shouldn't apply for that same year?

The LSAT is so annoying!

I ran to the comments to see all the jokes about the poor cat.

I couldn't find the conclusion in this one. I usually ask what is supporting what, but I felt that either way I phrased it, it was logical.

Ex: why is it a fuzzy distinction? bc it is often impossible to determine...

why is it impossible to determine between... bc it rest on a fuzzy distinction.

I don't understand how D is an assumption; isn't that what the stimulus is trying to say?

I took out E because the passage said many and E said none, but the explanation given disqualified E because it went from reviewer to general public. Is my reason still valid for canceling it out?

A reads more like a summary of the argument.

So, Eminem in 8 Mile's final rap battle. Got it!