5/5 BUT one the hardest question took me 10 minutes alone. A lot of work to do here.

Did anyone else take 8:45 to get to the right answer? If only I could get the right answer by the target time.

I have the same question, and I also placed B to the left for Meli.

I would also add that "we must do what we can to protect the big horn," would include the "loss of some individuals of another" which could be completed any number of ways (I'm specifically thinking hunting mountain lions).

To say Meli's statement offers no support either way seems wrong. Feel free to correct me.

I got all but one of the questions wrong. I don't feel like there was a lot of lesson here other than practicing. But practicing when I'm still not locked on is a problem. I think there should be more here - much more than just referring to old lessons.

I'd like some other tips, strategies, something to help. Comments have been slightly helpful, but it wasn't enough for me to feel even a little confident moving forward.

I also didn't choose C because of "all" being far too strong. But after reflecting on A (which was my choice) it makes sense, the stimulus never mentions how many narratives or cultures were studied - only that those that were studied had a lot of time and distance between each other, implying they could not borrow from each other.

Of course I rationalized it by filling in that time with other civilizations that would have carried those narratives onward.

So there must be a relationship between some and most, defined as:

X←s→Y logically equivalent to X‑m→Y

Since, Few X are Y can be translated to X←s→Y, and X‑m→Y

Good to know about the LSAC policy. Everything else was a waste of my time.

#feedback This section appears to be added to assist in bigger picture understanding of the LSAT problems (ie, sample sizes, problems with "experiments", etc.) but there is a lack of application or clear cut take-aways from these lessons.

While the information may be pertinent and useful, it seems to fall into the black hole of notes I have with no discernible point.

I had the same question, and your comment doesn't actually clear anything up. You provide examples of the mechanics of it, but when would you negate vs use the contrapostive.

The skill builders this time around seem to have used a combination of contraposition and negation, but it appears unclear as to when to use each.

For question 5: Anyone who is twenty-one years old or older is legally allowed to purchase alcohol in the United States.

It appears to have an if and only if relationship. That is, if P then Q and if Q then P.

If (21 or older) then purchase legally. ↔ If (purchase legally) then (21 or older).

This is based on the context of the question. If someone has legally purchased alcohol then there is no situation in which they are not 21 years or older. The same is true if they are 21 years and older then they are allowed to purchase alcohol in the US.

This exercise was for practicing De Morgans laws, but I want to make sure I'm translating the sentences correctly.

Question 3 has confused some people, and for me I think the issue is trying to build the intuition for necessary vs sufficient. I initially have the conditions flipped. I tried to create a visual for the problem to assist, but this was difficult.

Under the set "Oral Myths" there would be: written down, not written down, survived, not survived. How would I generate the visual appropriately from this problem statement to arrive at the correct conclusion.

The fact that some of the group 1 and group 2 indicators are under and over inclusive means an intuitive approach or knowledge for this would be super beneficial. Can anyone help with visualizing?

Replacing the referential with the referent made it incredibly clear. Thank you.

Some cultivars of corn are much more closely related to sorghum than they are to other cultivars of corn.

Some cultivars of corn are much more closely related to sorghum than some cultivars of corn are to other cultivars of corn.

While this was my line of thinking as well, I reviewed Kaizen101's answer below which made it a bit more clear.

While we both successfully associated "some cultivars of corn" with "more closely related to sorghum," I think this may lead to incorrect answers depending on the question. Especially after the clarification of "than" vs "than to."

See Kaizen101's reply. Hope that helps.