So it sounds like we're not expected to write this out. Is it ever worth writing out formal logic chains? Or is it too much of a time-sink to ever do that? Should I even really need to use scratch paper on the test?

Since A2 is so subjective couldn't it be right in almost any circumstance? Like how would I as a reader, uneducated on the subject, know if there is or is not a better hypothesis unless the premise specifically states that? #feedback

I feel like the LSAT writers always try to turn people away by throwing a crazy vocabulary word (like cogent) in the correct answer choice. I may be wrong but I feel like every time there is only one answer choice with a out of nowhere vocab word, 9/10 times that is the correct answer, especially if everything up until that word was making sense. They want you to see that word and skip it because you think "I don't know that word, therefore the answer doesn't make sense"

Is it just me or does it feel like there should be a more concise way to explain this? Granted it took me about 3 minutes to get the right answer but I feel like the explanation just overcomplicates the analysis, especially when there's a time constraint involved #feedback

"I FEEL LIKE A KING! THE SUNS EYES BURN WHEN IT LOOKS UPON ME. THE OCEAN IS TERRIFIED OF THE DEPTHS OF MY WISDOM. THE NIGHT TURNS TO DAY AS IT RUNS AWAY IN FEAR." -me who got the last 5 questions wrong except this one

What would you think about using the highlighting tool for marking the breaks in really large paragraphs? That way it is more visually distinctive and it's much quicker to go back and find your place. I hear that the tool can be a little clunky and that it might sacrifice too much time to try and use it. What are your thoughts?

I really appreciate that you take the time to help us find out how to answer questions without even knowing the definitions. Sometimes I feel like in the LR core curriculum it was assumed that everyone knew the most random words and so there wasn't even an explanation.