hey everyone. I started studying a couple months ago going through the whole curriculum and now I'm just drilling until i take the lsat in approximately a month.

overall i feel pretty good about my RC and some of my LR. but when it comes to anything related to sufficiency necessary, contrapositives, lawgic, diagramming, etc. I feel absolutely hopeless and clueless.

For example, I did PT136.S4.Q20 recently and I got it wrong and when I went to check the correct answer and explanation, I felt so lost. There was nothing I could even write down in my wrong answer journal.

Figuring out what's sufficient what's necessary, taking the contrapositive correctly then diagramming and chaining together conditionals in the stimulus and then doing so for each answer choice. It seems like something I could never do. I just don't even know where to start.

not only does missing these questions and not being able to understand them conceptually hurt my confidence with LR, I feel like its affecting my performance elsewhere. It's massively damaged my confidence in my ability to score well on the LSAT as whole.

I've looked online for resources and help, but every time someone tries to explain these concepts they do it in the easiest way possible that I feel doesn't carry over to the LSAT.

Yes, I am capable of understanding that being a dog is sufficient to being a mammal, and being a mammal is necessary for being a dog. But it's never that simple in an actual question on the LSAT.

i guess my point with this post, besides just venting, is to ask what resources have you found helped you in understanding formal logic, as it relates to questions on the LSAT?