Update for anyone who views this. I would suggest using Edge as a browser and using the read aloud function (crtl+shift+u). They have a bunch of different voice selections, and it is by far the most natural tts software I’ve ever heard. I highly recommend it as I really need the audio component to help me focus and absorb the content!

Just a note I found helpful when trying to parse some of the more verbose passages. These arguments are necessarily the strongest or without many assumptions, but more so written this way to add complexity to the main point of the exercise, which is to simply identify the premises and conclusions. Therefore its ok, at least from my perspective, to find some of the arguments to not be the most persuasive as that's how many of the actual LSAT questions will be, but instead simply focus on the core exercise of identifying the components of the given argument. Getting into this style of thinking really helped me conquer the more difficult questions for this exercise!

I got baited so hard by AC B, in my blind review the alarm bells started going off about the use of the "universal aspect of human culture" as a trap, but I was also so turned off by the use of "all" in C, that I sadly stuck with it.

I really don't understand where this rule " For conditionals, A and B negates to A → /B " came from or how it would be applicable to the actual exam. I understand it intuitively as you're saying that rather than both A and B being true simultaneously, you're positing that /B is a necessary condition of A and thus can't exist together. However, we previously learned about negation of the conjunction "and" in conditional relationships as being A and B → C negated to /C → /A or /B as specified by De Morgan's law. I guess I'm just struggling to see how to tell the difference or when/how to use this new rule in context with a question on the LSAT. Greatly appreciate any comments or help someone could add!