A tip for anyone struggling or looking to cut down on time: focus on the indefinite pronouns, "any," "most," "more," etc., and then find the answer where the conclusion and premises's indefinite pronouns (or their equivalent) match the question stem. Good luck!

I took the LSAT in June, I'd say they are similar, but not the same. The median difficulty felt about a 3.5/5 but I'm pretty comfortable with LR material. Regardless I would bet on the test being at most a point to around half of a point harder than the PTs.

You should pick up "Ellen Cassidy - The Loophole in LSAT Logical Reasoning" Chapter 4 discusses sets, (X --> Y -->Z), (X -most-> Y --> Z), and (X -m-> Y -m-> Z). The whole books is great too. Helped me break into the high 160's

But one of the most important thing to remember is to be as ungenerous as possible.

Some can mean as little as 1%, if I say some of my cookie is chocolate chip and some of my cookie is raisin, then I could mean that my cookie has a single chocolate chip and a single raisin. Does that mean my chocolate chip is on top of my raisin? Nope. Even if most of my cookie is made of chocolate ship and some is raisin, that single raisin could always hide in the regular cookie part. But if most of my cookie is chocolate chip and most of my cookie is raisin, then there is going to be a spot where they are on top of each other because most implies more than half (51%), and there's no way I can have a cookie which is more than 100%.

With necessary and sufficient assumptions you can always assume that whenever the sufficient condition is present the necessary condition will be there too, 100% of the time. The trick of linking logic chains without the some(s) or most(s) is to get really good at translating into your own words, the words 'only' and 'unless'. Group 2 and Group 3 indicators. Practice translating sentences with them until its second nature.

When I was first starting out this video helped a lot:

8.2 was tricky, but here was my reasoning:

1. All libraries and bookstores are intellectual places.

2. Most well-stocked intellectual places showcase a wide range of books on various subjects.

3. But if an intellectual place is disorganized, it is not well-stocked.

Claim 1 had nothing to do with the succeeding claims since neither bookstores nor libraries reappear; 'intellectual places' was the only tie to the other two claims, but since it was not what was 'in question' (i.e., neither claim 2 nor 3 asked if anything was an 'intellectual place'), I was able to disregard the first claim entirely.

1. All libraries and bookstores are intellectual places.

2. Most well-stocked intellectual places showcase a wide range of books on various subjects.

3. But if an intellectual place is disorganized, it is not well-stocked.

Once left with 2 & 3, the question became simpler. Again, since, 'intellectual place" was not in question, I was able to disregard those phrases:

1. All libraries and bookstores are intellectual places.

2. Most well-stocked intellectual places showcase a wide range of books on various subjects.

3. But if an intellectual place is disorganized, it is not well-stocked.

Now the question became, is there a relationship between 'well-stocked'?

2. Most well-stocked [areas] showcase a wide range of books.

3. If [areas] are disorganized, it is not well-stocked.

Since 'disorganization' and 'wide range of books' have nothing to do with one another, I determined there was no argument. Hopefully, this helps someone out.

The LSAT is weird. I have been struggling with these questions, but this one came to me so fast that I had a minute to spare.