The question stem says the argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it blank, so this is a flaw question.

Let's figure out why the premise doesn't prove the conclusion.

We're told that in a recent field study of prairie plants, the more plant species a prairie plot had,

Now what that sentence is describing is a correlation that we observed in this study between the number of plant species in a prairie plot

and the strength of the plants and the nutritiousness of the soil within that plot.

Now the reason we know this is a correlation is because when we're told the more of one thing, the more of another thing,

that means that there's an association between those qualities.

The more of this quality, the more of the other quality.

That is an example of a correlation between the two qualities.

Now the important thing to recognize when we get a sentence like this first sentence,

which is describing the more of one thing, the more of another thing,

the important thing to recognize is that there is nothing causal about that relationship.

Or at least, there doesn't have to be anything causal about that relationship.

The fact that the number of plant species is correlated with strength of plants and the nutritious soil

does not mean that having a greater number of plant species causes the plants to be stronger or causes the soil to be better.

And we also don't know the other way around either.

This doesn't mean that when you have stronger plants that that will cause a greater number of plant species.

Or that when you have more nutritious soil, that will cause a greater number of plant species.

We just don't know whether there is a causal relationship here.

But what do you expect?

The author reaches this conclusion, thus having more plant species improves a prairie's ability to support plant life.

This is a causal claim. The author thinks the number of plant species has a causal impact on ability to support plant life,

which is related to the idea of stronger plant and nutritious soil.

So fundamentally, the author is assuming that this causes that.

They don't use the exact same words as vigorous plants or nutritious soil,

but ability to support plant life is just a more general way of describing what the author believes these features here relate to.

Now by the way, the reason I know that this conclusion is causal is because of this word improves.

That means the author thinks that the number of species is like producing something, is having an effect.

That's the signal that that's a causal claim.

Now why is this argument flawed?

Well, because you can't move from correlation and conclude with certainty causation.

Why not? Well, there's a whole bunch of possibilities.

For example, maybe the reason these two things are correlated is not because the number of plant species causes stronger plants,

it could be that there's something else that is causing both the number of plant species as well as the strength of plants.

That's one possibility.

Another possibility is that maybe the causation is actually reversed.

It could be that having better soil and stronger plants causes more plant species.

Now I mentioned before that it would be wrong for us to conclude that this thing causes more plant species,

so we wouldn't be able to reach that conclusion, but it is certainly a possibility,

and it's a possibility that would show why the author's version of the causal relationship doesn't have to be true.

Now another reason that we can't go from correlation to causation is that maybe it's just a coincidence.

Maybe there's just no causal relationship at all between these two things,

and it's just purely coincidence that these two happen to seem to go together in this study.

Now ideally, by the time we take the test, we'll have already thoroughly thought through and studied correlation to causation

and why that doesn't work.

So in a timed situation, I would just immediately register they're going from correlation to causation.

Let's go for an answer that is getting at the correlation to causation fallacy.

Now for the purpose of this explanation, I'll start at the bottom and then work our way up.

Wait, what does this even match up to?

An increase in number. Is there an increase in number here?

I mean, I suppose that is referring to the idea of the more plant species a prairie plot had.

So let's say like one plot had 10 species and another plot had 4 species,

but that's just a comparison between different plots which have different numbers of plant species.

That's not an increase. That's not a change in the number of species.

So there's no way that we can match this concept in E with anything that happened in the argument.

That's why it's wrong.

What E is describing is a percentage versus amount kind of fallacy,

but that's not a correlation to causation fallacy.

So D is describing the flaw of having an unrepresentative sample.

But I have no reason to think that anything about the plots in this study are unrepresentative.

It just says, here's a study, here's what we found in these prairie plots.

I have no reason to think that the prairie plots here are like different from the typical prairie plot,

so I have no reason to think that anything is unrepresentative.

that the characteristics of one prairie plot could reveal something about the characteristics of other prairie plots.

Well, first of all, I don't even know that this is accurate,

because it's not like we just looked at a single prairie plot and then drew all kinds of conclusions based on that.

This is a study where we observed a correlation,

and in order to observe this correlation, we had to have studied more than one prairie plot,

because we're looking at like a range of prairie plots.

Some of them have more plant species, some of them have less.

So I don't even know where the idea of like going from one prairie plot comes from.

But in any case, even if the argument were assuming C, which I don't think it is,

but even if it were, there's nothing that's unreasonable about this assumption.

We actually would be allowed to draw a conclusion about other prairie plots based on one prairie plot,

as long as that prairie plot was similar to the other ones.

There's nothing inherently suspect about that type of argument.

So I wouldn't even see that as something that is a flaw in an argument.

It would be a flaw if like the one prairie plot you're basing your argument off of

has significant differences, has relevant differences from other prairie plots.

But there's nothing wrong with simply going from one prairie plot to another.

by which productivity is supposedly increased.

So it is true that the argument doesn't say,

here's how having more plant species causes better ability to support plant life.

But the argument doesn't need to do that.

You're allowed to make a causal claim and say,

based on this data, I think A causes B,

and you don't need to articulate the exact causal mechanism for how A causes B.

Now certainly you would strengthen your argument if you were able to provide a causal mechanism,

but you're not required to.

You can still make an argument without providing a causal mechanism.

that X causes Y, without considering whether Y causes X.

And yes, answer choice A is an accurate description of something the argument does wrong.

Out of the two correlated phenomena, which is X and Y,

the author infers, or in other words assumes,

that X causes Y, without considering whether Y causes X.

That is exactly something that happened.

Now by the way, the correct answer also could have said,

infers of two correlated phenomena, X and Y,

that X causes Y, without considering whether something else caused both X and Y.

Or it could have said, without considering whether the relationship is purely coincidental.

So I don't want you to go into this thinking

that the answer had to be about the potential reverse causation.

It didn't have to be written this way.

But this is one way that is an accurate description

of why this correlation to causation fallacy doesn't work.

It's a fresh attempt, so I've never seen this PrepTest before.

I think this first section, you know, typically on these live commentary videos,

I berate myself for, like, spending too much time on a question on Round 1 and not skipping.

This is an exception. I think I actually did pretty well with regard to skipping.

Maybe I skipped pretty aggressively.

But anyways, okay, so I'll just comment on these questions as I'm doing them.

First question I thought was pretty straightforward.

Took about 35 seconds.

I did not anticipate the answer, but A just, you know, sounded right.

So you saw me scan B through E and, you know, just eliminating them.

So question 2 also took about 35 seconds.

This one was more or less anticipated.

You know, I read to the end. I'm like, oh, but, you know, the Iliad, right?

That's a story, so it has to be right.

So I kind of thought about that.

You can see it's, like, quicker. I'm going through the answers a little quicker.

And then I got to E. I'm like, yeah, that's kind of what I was thinking.

So I picked it.

35 seconds for that one.

Also 35 seconds between Flynn and Garcia method of reasoning.

This one I actually cannot remember if I anticipated it or not.

But I don't know.

I thought it was pretty straightforward.

Just talking about something that maybe, you know, maybe Flynn had not thought about.

So A sounded pretty good.

And in that situation, you know, in situations like that, I do read the other answer choices just to make sure.

So, okay, circle A, move on 35 seconds for that.

Question 4, also 35 seconds.

And this one, oh, yeah, this one I definitely anticipated what the answer was going to be.

So I just, you know, it's a disagreement question.

So I'm holding the ideas in my mind.

As soon as reading, finishing reading Wilkerson's, I just thought, oh, okay, it's like whether, yeah.

So you see I'm scanning the answers for E and then E is what I had anticipated.

By the way, when you anticipate an answer choice, you almost never anticipate the exact phrasing, wording.

Because how could you, right?

There's so many different ways to say something.

But you anticipate the general direction.

And that gives you a, that's like a guidepost, right?

That gives you a general direction of what you're looking for.

So you have to be open-minded when you're reading the answers.

So I encounter E, I'm like, oh, yeah, E says it, right?

It cuts both ways, though.

As you'll see on the later question, I think it was question 8.

When you anticipate something and then they say it really in a way that you don't expect.

And then that leads you not to find it.

So, okay, so question 4 was 35 seconds.

Question 5's first question I ran into trouble with.

It took 55 seconds on round 1.

I did, you know, I did circle B.

I'm just thinking about this.

Like, I was just thinking about, like, what is error here, right?

Yeah.

So I did circle B, which is the right answer.

But I just didn't feel comfortable about it.

So I was like, okay, whatever.

Circle it, move on.

Time to move on, right?

It's question 5.

You just can't, you have to be very sensitive and just train yourself to just keep moving, right?

You got so many more questions, like at least 20 questions ahead of you that you have not encountered.

There's no point in getting tripped up in, like, one question and wasting your time.

Question 6.

Question 6 is pretty straightforward.

40 seconds.

I do recall anticipating the answer choice here.

It's a disagreement answer choice.

And I do recall anticipating it.

And so I saw B.

I'm like, oh, yeah, B sounds about right.

Kind of skimming the other answers just to make sure, you know, you always want to make sure.

Well, I don't know.

Sometimes, like, sometimes I don't.

Sometimes I'm, like, pretty reckless.

But I don't know.

For whatever reason, for question 6, I just wanted to skim the others to make sure.

Question 7.

55 seconds.

This one, you can see the length of the question is longer, right?

It's just a longer question with more words.

So it took longer.

You know, just the argument itself is just longer.

You don't expect to spend the same amount of time for all logic games.

You don't expect to spend the same amount of time for all LR questions.

Some of them are just longer.

So I think 55 seconds is fine for this one.

I got the answer choice B.

I liked it.

And I am reading the others just to make sure.

Later you'll see we have a couple of parallel questions, which are really long.

Nothing you can do about it.

You just have to spend more time.

Okay, so that was question 7.

So far I have one question circled.

It's question 5.

Question 8.

Yeah, so question 8, I did anticipate the answer choice upon reading.

It's an analogy.

You know, you just have to draw an analogy.

But in my mind, the analogy was loose.

So answer choice C is, like, phrased very cleverly.

They say a variety of moral codes can be based in shared moral attitudes.

And I think the way I had anticipated it, if I recall correctly,

is I anticipated for them to say, like, the same or shared moral attitudes can give rise to a variety of moral codes.

But, you know, what I just said and what answer choice C says is the same thing.

It's just answer choice C starts with the second half of what I said.

So, I mean, you know, apparently it effectively hid itself as the correct answer choice.

And you saw me, like, turn my hand up going, like, what the hell?

Like, I don't see anything.

So I'm going back and rereading the stimulus.

And then now, see, I'm reading it more carefully.

See, like, the first time I read answer choice, I don't even think I read answer choice C all the way through.

I just saw a variety of moral codes.

I'm like, that's not what I'm looking for.

All right, so now that I read it all the way through, it's like, OK, it's pretty clear.

So anyway, that was 1 minute and 10 seconds for answer choice A.

So that's what I said earlier about anticipating answer choice cuts both ways.

You really do have to be open-minded.

Like, there are so many ways of saying the same thing.

You can't expect yourself to.

And if you do expect yourself to anticipate down to, like, the detail, like, to the word, then you're just going to get into trouble.

Right?

You're not going to find it.

Outside writers are really good about phrasing things to hide it or phrasing things to make it seem like it's saying something it's not saying.

Right?

I mean, that's like the lawyer's trade.

Anyway, so question 9.

Oh, yeah, question 9 is super cookie cutter.

It's just causal, right, causation stuff.

35 seconds for question 9.

I don't think I even looked at B, C, D, and E.

Or if I looked at it, it's like my eyes, like, made contact, but I didn't really process.

That's why it's so fast.

Question 10.

Oh, yeah, question 10 was tough.

OK, so see, like, question 10, again, is a long question.

And look at the length of the argument, right?

The mistake for question 10 happens when they sneak in this conclusion that says sophisticated tools.

Even though, like, in all the premises, they don't mention anything about, like, what kind of tools they were making.

They just sneak in.

But because of the length of the argument, like, I just didn't pick up on that.

I was like, oh, yeah, sure, sophisticated.

Right?

Because there's so much other stuff going on.

So, look, I just eliminated the right answer choice.

C is just gone, right?

So, you know, that happens, right?

As you can see, it's happening right now.

So on round 1, I get to the end of this.

Round 1, I'm just like, yeah, I don't know what's going on.

Right?

So I'm reading it again.

So at the end of round 1, I end up spending about a minute and 25 seconds on this.

And I do just circle it.

And I move on from it after having circled it because I realize I don't know what's going on.

So usually this would be a situation where, you know, I'm like, oh, my God, I can't believe I spent so much time on this.

Like, what was I thinking?

You guys don't do this.

Just circle and move on.

But surprisingly, I actually did what I tell you guys to do, which is just to circle and move on.

And it's in a respectable amount of time.

Like, 1 minute 25 is totally fine for round 1.

So I will come back to this.

Yeah, I will come back to this one on round 2.

Okay, so next one, question 11.

Question 11, yeah, pretty straightforward.

45 seconds, most strongly supported question.

You see, I just liked A.

Like, not in love with A.

Just kind of liked it.

So, yeah, reading the others just to make sure.

Yeah, so 45 seconds for that one.

So question 12.

Question 12, I spent 55 seconds on round 1 just to skip it.

I think I made the right call because the argument, for whatever reason, was just incredibly confusing for me.

I didn't know.

It's a strengthening question.

So, you know, like a hole in there somewhere.

I could tell there was definitely a hole in there somewhere.

It's not one of those strengthening questions where it's like, oh, it's a good argument.

And then the right answer choice just makes one of your premises even stronger.

It adds, like, a whole new dimension to one of your premises.

That's a different type of strengthening.

I think those are kind of harder.

This one, I could tell there's a hole, right?

There's, like, an assumption gap somewhere.

But I just couldn't figure out what it was.

And also, I just didn't want to bother, like, you know, I'm looking through the answers for help.

You know, I always do that.

Like, at least look through the answers, give it a wince over to see if any of them is friendly.

Right?

It almost never is the case.

But, you know, sometimes the right answer choice speaks to me.

But anyway, so, again, amazingly enough, I only spent 55 seconds and I just circled it and moved on.

So that's, like, that's really great.

And I'm really surprised because typically I'm pretty stubborn about this.

And, you know, I don't have the ability to practice like you guys do because I don't have, like, just the vast store of, like, fresh prep tests.

You know, I only get, like, three a year.

So it's hard for me to change old habits.

Right?

That's why I keep stressing in live commentary videos like this one that you guys really need to get into the habit of just aggressively skipping.

So we're three skips already.

Question 13.

I've done this again.

Right?

You saw me already read question 13 once, eliminate all the answers.

I picked the wrong one.

And I just don't like it.

I'm just, like, I don't understand what's going on.

So on round one, which is what we're looking at right now, it's a minute and 20 seconds.

And I'm deciding I'm indecisive between A and D.

So it took me one minute and 20 seconds to just – I think this is, like, my third read of the stimulus.

And I just, like, okay, I don't get this.

See, okay, here's the other thing.

When you're practicing aggressive skipping, like, when you're practicing – it's the reach for the low-hanging fruit.

Right?

Review the lesson on, like, I think it was called – I made an extended analogy with coconuts, why you have to skip questions.

So that's what I'm talking about here.

Right?

So I'm – look at this page-fold spread.

Right?

I skipped three – I got three questions circled, all with, like, blank or wrong answers on them.

Right?

Don't get freaked out by that.

It's fine.

Right?

It's just fine.

Like, the point of skipping is that you get to the other questions better – or, rather, get to the easier questions faster, sooner, and answer them.

Right?

So if you freak yourself out by skipping, then it's incredibly counterproductive.

So, like, for example, question 14 – I just didn't think question 14 was that hard.

It's a necessary assumption question.

I anticipated what the assumption was.

And I find it, and I move on.

It only takes 40 seconds.

Right?

So that's a sign that my mental state was not adversely – at least, as far as I can tell, that's a sign that my mental state was not adversely affected by the fact that I had just skipped three questions, which is good, because that's how it should be.

So question – let's see.

Question 15.

Question 15 – oh, right.

Yeah, this one.

So it took 1 minute and 35 seconds.

I'm reading the stimulus twice now.

It was just kind of difficult to – I don't know.

Like, leather, fur, clothing versus material – those concepts in my mind, believe it or not, are not that distinct.

Like, I think of fur – I don't think of that distinctly as material for clothing.

I kind of conflate that as clothing itself.

But, of course, you know, leather is leather.

Leather doesn't have to be clothing.

Leather could be, I don't know, made into a bag or something.

Right?

So in my mind, that distinction wasn't that clear, which I think is why, like, when I'm reading this stuff, I'm like, wait a second.

Price is a material used in manufacturing clothing.

So that's why it took a while.

So I'm reading – I'm indecisive between A and E.

Of course, E is the right answer.

And also, the other thing for A is that I just didn't – I didn't – I did not pick up on this word any.

Right?

Like, the price of any manufactured good – I mean, clearly it's, like – this is way too narrow of stimulus to support, like, any manufactured good.

So, yeah.

Anyway.

That's a slash on D, by the way.

That's not, like, a – that's not, like, an underline, even though it looks like it.

That's just my terrible notation.

So I slashed out D.

But anyway.

Okay.

So 1 minute 35 seconds on question 15.

Yeah.

Question 16 was real quick.

I just – I kind of just anticipated what the right answer was.

30 seconds.

See, like, it's like questions – like, question 16, I think, is a pretty easy question.

On top of it being easy, it's also a short question.

Right?

Unlike those parallel – a lot of parallel method reasoning questions are fairly easy.

But nonetheless, they're long.

So, okay, they're easy and long.

You have to spend more time on it.

This one is easy and short.

So what does that mean?

That means you have to bank time away.

You have to pick up time and bank it away.

And, again, not get – not get flustered by the fact that you skipped a bunch of questions.

The point of skipping questions is to get to question 16.

Get to questions like question 16 and be able to do it quick and fast and bank time away.

Anyway.

So that's all good.

So, as you can see, now the section clock is reading about 14 minutes.

I'm on question 17, which is typically a great marker.

I mean, this is all personal, right, depending on where you're scoring.

For me personally, I like to be averaging under one minute per question.

And so far I am.

Question 17 was really rough.

I'll end up doing three rounds on question 17.

Yeah.

Yeah, because it just – I don't know.

For some reason, it just didn't make sense.

So first round here, question 17, was one minute and 30 seconds.

And, I mean, I don't know what I can say about this.

It's just – something was not clicking, and I just cannot – I mean, I've already eliminated the right answer.

Yeah, and I can't – I can't figure it out.

So the only thing I can say is that I made the right decision.

I'm circling the wrong answer.

I made the right decision to skip it at one minute and 30 seconds in and not waste more time.

It's just – this is so obvious for me from personal experience.

I know this about myself.

It doesn't become clearer.

Like, the more time I spend with a question on round one, I just – I'm just wasting time.

Like, that time is better spent on something else, right?

Okay, so good skip.

Question 18, PSA question.

Yeah, read the stimulus twice just to make sure I understand.

PSA questions are typically very formulaic.

I tend to – oh, yeah, my shitty camera – $10 camera arm just broke.

So that's what that is.

Sorry.

Yeah, so I get to the right answer choice here, answer choice E, and I just circle it.

Or rather – what is it, E?

Do I like D?

Oh, yeah, I was deciding between D and E.

Yeah, that's right.

That's what that underlying for D was.

I was deciding between D and E, and then I liked E better, so I just circled it.

But anyway, question 18 was 50 seconds.

So, again, not letting question 17 affect your mental state.

So question 18 was good at 50 seconds.

And next, question 19.

I read the stimulus.

It's a necessary assumption question, and I immediately just knew what the assumption gap was.

So I went into hunt mode for it just real quick.

Okay, so I'm reading stimulus again.

Yeah, so if you ever wonder how many times I read a stimulus,

here you can just see the empirical evidence is that I read it more than once very often.

It's super important to understand what the argument is saying.

So it's a necessary assumption question.

I spot the assumption.

So you see my thumb is my left-hand thumb is guiding what I'm reading.

So I got to E, I'm like, oh, yeah, that's it.

So that was 50 seconds on that one.

Question 20, disagreement question between Lyle and Carl took one minute.

Yeah, and I also just, I just, you know, I think I drew some notes on this.

I'm not even sure what they say now.

I think that's supposed to be shorthand for aesthetic and, but understand, is that, I don't know what that is.

The slash thing is aesthetic.

So Lyle, this is for Lyle.

Lyle doesn't care about the aesthetics much.

Yeah, I think maybe it's about the understanding thing.

Anyway, I thought this was pretty straightforward.

Just got to answer choice D, one minute for that.

The next question, question 21.

It's a parallel flaw.

So you're looking for an analogous, you're looking for an analogous argument that shares the same flaw.

So yeah, it's, it took in total one minute, 45 seconds, which I know that sounds like it's a long time, but it's not.

It's like for a question like this, it's actually a very short amount of time to be spending.

So as soon as I read this stimulus, I'm like, okay, I can't hold this in my mind.

I need to map, I need to, I need to have some visual like sort of placeholder for what's going on abstractly for what's going on with the logic.

So that's what the map is.

So I make a little error here.

I'm supposed to put a most, an M on the top arrow, which I figure out.

So good.

And then the conclusion, I just kind of haphazardly have some representation of the conclusion.

I don't think it's like strictly logically accurate.

It's not how I would teach.

I hope, actually, I haven't seen that my explanation video.

I hope that's not how I taught it in the explanation video.

There's a better way to represent the conclusion.

But anyway, it's good enough for just kind of as a placeholder.

So here's the thing I want you to pay attention to.

You don't like, there's no way you do a deep dive on every single answer choice.

That's just such a waste of time.

So branch choice, as soon as I got to the word, if I'm like, what conditional, there's no conditional, skip, right?

For B, as soon as I saw that the conclusion is a most statement, I'm just like, okay, whatever, move on.

Right?

It just doesn't match.

For C, I saw the unless in a conclusion.

So I'm sorry, unless is in the premise statement.

So again, just move on.

And then I got to D.

Therefore, there must be a conditional statement in the conclusion.

Move on.

Right?

It just, it doesn't mean that they're 100% wrong.

It just means that it's not worth your time to check it out more.

Right?

So then I got to answer choice E.

I mapped it out.

I'm like, okay, that's it.

Right?

So you can see that there are different strengths.

I eliminated A and C because I was more sure that they were wrong.

But for B and D, I'm like, okay, you know, the reasons I eliminated them because of the conditional, there must be in the conclusion.

Okay, maybe that's not as solid.

So maybe I'll keep it and maybe I can go back to it later.

Anyway, so that's how you can do these questions faster.

You have to prioritize which answer choices are actually deserving of your attention and time.

Right?

So they're not all equally deserving.

So you have to give, I call it a shallow dip versus a deep dive.

Right?

So first give everything a shallow dip and then do the deep dive.

All right.

So I'm quite behind now.

So question 22, question 22 was 35 seconds.

I read it and I just, I knew what the flaw was.

It's just like, it's just contradiction.

Right?

So I started hunting for it.

So A was pretty quick.

So again, you see, like sometimes they do just hide these very cookie cutter answers.

Like question 22, you wouldn't expect question 22 to be easy-ish.

Right?

So, and, but it is.

So they often do this.

They hide these like sort of little nuggets that you can just pick up real quick in the later questions, which is why it's so important that you get to these later questions in a good state of mind.

Right?

So you can pick it, pick them up, 35 seconds, bank some time away.

So it's all good.

And finally, last page.

Question 23 is another, it's another parallel question.

So this one, the structure was kind of weird.

So I'm like, okay, you see my little map for it down there.

Right?

It's just, it's ad hoc.

I just made it up on the spot.

Right?

So, okay.

So you're a spy, either you're caught or not caught.

If you're caught, then that's failure.

So failure, we've learned lessons.

If you're not caught, then I guess that means you're successful and we don't really know that much about you.

So again, I'm doing a shallow dip.

I'm doing, I'm not doing a deep dive.

I'm just kind of shallow, kind of like, oh, it's like sampling A.

Does A sound right?

No, maybe not.

B, okay, B sounds about good.

So now I'm down to B and E, I believe.

Right?

So I like B.

Now I'm C.

Now I'm close.

Now this is a deep dive for B.

Right?

Because B warrants it.

B has enough signals to me that's like, okay, this is about right.

So it's time, you know, you're always concerned about making sure you're saving time.

So, okay.

Ultimately, this one took about 1 minute and 40 seconds.

I gently circle it because there's some lingering doubt about E, but I don't think I ever get back to this.

1 minute and 40 seconds for question 23.

And the whole section clock is still reading 22 minutes-ish.

So I'm just barely above the 1 minute per question average.

And this is all due to aggressive skipping, by the way.

Right?

It's just like impossible to do this.

I mean, I don't know.

It's impossible for me to do this without like aggressively skipping.

Question 24.

Yeah.

Oh, yeah.

This one I thought was pretty tough.

Necessary assumption question.

1 minute and 5 seconds on round 1 getting nowhere.

I just, like, none of this was clicking.

I'm just like, okay, there's too much crap going on.

I don't know what's going on.

Just, I'm just contemplating it.

And I just, yeah, I just circle it and move on.

So, again, like a very good decision, very good call to just move on so quickly at 1 minute 05.

I am, like, really shocked when I'm, like, watching this footage at how I did not linger on these questions.

Typically, I'm, like, pretty bad about that.

So this is, like, a rare example of good habits that you ought to emulate.

Okay.

Question 25.

Yeah.

Question 25, just, you know, again, like, you got to pick up those easy points where you can.

So this is, I thought this one was pretty easy for me.

Weekend question, I just spotted the flaw.

Took 35 seconds to do.

Yeah.

And just picked answer, Tracy.

So at the end of round 1, the clock is only reading about 23 and a half-ish minutes, right?

23 and a half-ish minutes.

And that's only because I aggressively skipped.

I circled 6 questions.

Of the 6, 5 of them were, like, legit skips, right?

So it's really important, right, to be able to do that.

So on round 2, let's see.

Where is this?

On round 2, question 5, took 25 seconds.

And I liked my answer choice, B.

So what I'm doing now is reading the stimulus again on round 2 because I already had this answer choice picked.

And I remember I kind of liked it, but I just wasn't too sure.

So then that means what I need to do is what I'm doing now, which is process eliminate, right?

Just make sure you get rid of the wrong ones.

So as soon as you did that, I didn't even think twice about B anymore because I already kind of liked it.

I was already biased in favor of it.

So having eliminated the rest of them, 25 seconds.

Confident in that answer choice.

Moving on.

Question 10.

Question 10.

Where the hell is my question 10?

Yeah, round 2 took – oh, yeah.

So I'm reading this, and immediately – so it's about to happen.

So I'm reading the stimulus again.

And there.

I just see it.

It's sophisticated tools.

So I really just have no explanation for this except that with a fresh pair of eyes, right, just on round 2, I just saw sophisticated.

So you see I already underlined answer choice C, meaning I really like answer choice C.

But because this question gave me a lot of trouble, I wanted to be extra careful and just eliminate the other answers.

So I go ahead and do that.

A and B were eliminated pretty quick.

D is really tricky.

D is like a backwards answer choice, I think.

It's a weakening question.

I feel like D is sort of almost weakening, but it's actually strengthening, I think.

Anyway, I'm sure I go into detail in the full explanation video for this.

So I think that's what caught me up on D and took a little while.

But round 2 for this question was 1 minute and 10 seconds.

So altogether, round 1 and round 2 for question 10 was 2 minutes and 35 seconds.

Oh, yeah.

Next page.

I'm looking at 12 and 13.

I just remember 12 being really tough.

So I was like, okay, I think 13 is going to be the easier one.

So that's why I do question 13 first.

And this one for round 2, it took 1 minute and 25 seconds.

And I'm rereading the stimulus like a bunch of times just to make sure I understand what's going on.

It was still kind of hard.

Oh, right.

One thing I want to point out is notice how messy the answer choice is already.

Like some of them have circles.

They all have slashes and some of them have circles on them.

They have slashes on the letters.

And they have slashes on the actual answer body of the answer choice.

So when that happens, you need a new symbol.

You need a new symbol to indicate that this is round 2 elimination.

This is the elimination that I really mean to eliminate.

All the other stuff, disregard that stuff.

That was just for play.

This is for keeps.

So that's what my little tilde squiggle eliminate.

Or, you know, something else you can do is you can just put little x's,

like just little x's next to the letters or next to the right of the answer or to the left of the answer.

But whatever it is, you need to have a new system to keep track of everything.

So this time I just saw D. I like D.

So you can see instead of just circling, I actually wrote D to, you know,

signal clearly to myself that I mean to choose answer choice D.

So that was 125 plus on round 2 plus the 120 on round 1 is 245 total for question 13.

Question 12, round 2.

Oh, yeah, it's just 35 seconds because the argument became clear.

Again, it's just inexplicable.

Just like the previous question about the Neanderthal tools.

I just, I don't know.

Like reading it again, I'm like, oh, yeah, that's C. That's what it is.

So what can I attribute that?

I really doubt that if I had spent the 35 seconds on round 2,

if I had spent that additional 35 in round 1, I don't think I would have gotten that.

I think that would have just been a wasted time.

Like I would have spent more time on round 1 and just still it wouldn't have clicked

because whatever confusion I'm sure was just still carrying through.

So taking time away, you know, backing off, looking at it again now,

it's definitely the right decision.

So next up, question 17, my favorite question from the section.

Yeah.

Round 2 was 1 minute 45 seconds.

I mean, you see me draw it.

I'm like – I'm really just throwing everything at this question.

I'm drawing diagrams, drawing another diagram.

Like, wait, that's not what they mean.

They mean the suburbs connected has to be one highway that connects,

not like a spoken wheel system or a spoken hub system.

It's like a – so anyway, I'm not sure how much that helped.

I don't think it did.

At the end of the day, I'm just like hard process of eliminate.

You know, when you can't get – it's not the preferred method.

The preferred method is go into hunt mode, like understand what the hell is going on,

understand what – but you can't – like some questions I just feel like you can't do that.

It's just not very clear what it is that they're going for.

So you just have to eliminate the wrong ones.

So that's what I'm doing.

Yeah, E is still not speaking.

Oh, it is. Okay.

Well, I guess I like E. Yeah.

So but – yeah, okay.

So I kind of like E.

That's what that hard circle was on question 17.

It means to come back again if I have time because I chose E, but I wasn't in love with it.

So anyway, round one was 130.

Round two was 145.

So far, that's 2 minutes, 3 minutes, and 15 seconds already on question 17.

It's super unbalanced, 3 minutes and 15 seconds.

And I will come back on round three, spend another 1 minute and 20 seconds,

making it a total of 1, 2, 3, 4 minutes and 35 seconds, right?

That's crazy if you think about it, 4 minutes and 35 seconds on one question.

It's just absolutely nuts.

What is that?

That's about 5 minutes, right?

That's about one-seventh of the time for section one was spent on one question.

I mean, there are 25 questions, right?

So it's super unbalanced.

But that's how it's supposed to be, right?

Because the difficulty of the questions are unbalanced.

Okay.

So enough about that one.

And now I'm on question – or I've been on question 24 for a while.

Question 24, round two was 1 minute, 30 seconds.

Yeah.

Again, it's just – you know, just reading round two just made it clearer for me.

I just – I didn't like – I'm eliminating the answers, right?

Like A is not good.

B is not good.

C is not good.

I don't like B.

And then I get to E.

Yeah, I get to E, and I just – I like E.

Again, it's just – I don't know what to call it.

It's just the round two effect, I suppose, right?

I just – I got a sense of clarity that I did not have when I was reading round one.

Okay.

So now back to my favorite question, question 17.

This is round three, 1 minute, 20 seconds.

And, again, I'm just like, okay, I really got to figure this out.

Suburb one, suburb two, suburb three, downtown.

And it's basically the same picture that I drew on the bottom left, right?

So I'm just paying attention to every little thing here, really trying to figure it out.

Once again, it's like the answer is a mess.

This whole question is a mess now, right?

So I need a clear notation system.

So what I do is I write little Xs to the right.

So I'm reading answer choice A.

Definitely not good.

Reading answer choice B.

Like whether it's most convenient doesn't matter.

Yeah, new stoplights, like old stoplights, new stoplights.

Am I supposed to assume something about this?

Yeah, D was sort of at the time.

The timing is off, right?

It was being built, but now it's like after.

So I eliminate all the rest of them.

I'm like, okay, whatever.

It's got to be E.

I don't think I understand why.

I'm not quite sure I understand why.

But it's good enough.

You know, you eliminate all the rest of them.

All right.

So that's about it.

The clock is 32.

I still have three minutes left on the clock.

I go through the section.

I give it a once over just because I have time.

But I think I do stop with like maybe a minute and a half left

because I am cognizant of the fact that I have not bubbled in anything.

So I definitely want to save like about a minute and a half to two minutes

to bubble.

Actually, you should.

Actually, this is a good thing.

You should time yourself.

Like just do bubbles.

Just like pick an old section that you've already filled in the answers for

and just time yourself.

Run a timer.

See how long it takes you to bubble in the answers.

That way you have a good sense.

I found it takes about like usually for me is under a minute and a half.

So, yeah, you want to make sure that when you're running,

when you're doing your simulated prep test,

you are using the bubbles because it does bubble sheet because it does take

a significant amount of time.

All right.

So that's it for me.

I think there's like a couple seconds left,

but hopefully you found this video helpful.

Okay.

Bye.

Bye.

Bye.

Bye.