Conditional Logic on PMR/SA questions

ssmith9664

So some of my top missed categories on PTs have been NA/SA/PMR, not because I think they are particularly difficult but sometimes I'm just missing the argument at hand or not properly seeing how the arguments are drawn in my head. A lot of the time when I see parallel flaw at the end of the test especially, my mind just says skip because there's just so much information to read. But, I know that if you parse the logic of the stimulus correctly, it's way easier to spot an AC that correctly fits. On Thinking LSAT, they mentioned looking at the conclusion of the stimulus and seeing if that accurately matches the AC, but I still can't read everything properly because some of the ideas can become too convoluted.

I'm wondering how y'all approach these questions in a formulaic way, do you spend time writing out the argument in lawgic format, or is there a better approach?