The question stem says, which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

So this is a strengthening question. Let's go ahead and break down this argument first.

Think about why the premises don't prove the conclusion,

and then we'll think about how we can help the argument, how we can make it better.

And right now, that sounds like a subjective judgment about who's better than another.

So that strikes me as a potential conclusion,

because typically when you issue this kind of subjective judgment

about one thing being better than another, you're going to follow that up with reasons.

So when I read the rest of this, I'm thinking,

why should I believe Sartor is better at reviewing movies than Kelly?

The next sentence says, a movie review should help readers determine

whether or not they are apt to enjoy the movie.

And so that right there seems to be a principle about

how we should tell whether a movie review is good or not.

This is giving us a criteria for what a movie review should do.

It should help a reader determine whether or not you're likely to enjoy the movie.

The stimulus continues and says,

and a person who is likely to enjoy a particular movie is much more likely to realize this

by reading a movie review by Sartor than a review by Kelly,

even though Sartor is more likely to give a movie an unfavorable review than a favorable one.

So the conclusion of this argument is the first sentence,

the author trying to convince us that Sartor is better.

And then we get two premises.

One premise is the next sentence,

which is a principle that tells us a criteria for what a movie review should do.

And then the other premise begins with this word and,

and goes all the way up until Kelly here.

And it's telling us that if you're a person who is likely to enjoy the movie,

you're going to realize that more when you read Sartor than when you read Kelly.

And so this is the other premise.

And the part beginning with even though all the way until the end,

that's not a premise.

That's just a concession that the author is making.

The author is conceding that, look,

I know Sartor gives worse reviews more than good reviews,

but set that aside.

That part doesn't matter.

Because of these two premises,

that's why I think Sartor is a better movie reviewer than Kelly.

And just in case it helps,

here's a visual of what's going on in the argument.

Imagine that we're having a discussion and someone asks the question,

well, who's a better movie reviewer?

Well, here's how we answer the question.

A movie review should do this thing.

It should help readers know whether they will enjoy the movie.

And so now that we have the criteria for a good movie review,

let's look at the facts.

Who does a better job at this?

The author then brings up the fact that if you're likely to enjoy the movie,

you're more likely to realize it or to know that you'll enjoy it

by reading Sartor than Kelly.

And so here's a point in favor of Sartor when we apply this principle.

Because of that, the author then reaches the conclusion,

okay, I think Sartor is better.

Now, at this point, I'm not really sure what's wrong with this argument.

I'm not necessarily completely convinced,

but there's nothing about this that strikes me as a clear flaw,

like the author is clearly overlooking something.

Now, if you're particularly clever,

maybe you'll be able to spot what's going on,

but I'm going to pretend like we can't.

So we're going to take this understanding to the answer choices,

and we'll have to just keep in mind that we're trying to strengthen the argument,

and that does not necessarily mean we're trying to pick an answer

that shows Sartor is a better movie reviewer.

What we are trying to do is pick an answer

that will help make the author's premises more supportive of the conclusion.

And really what I'm trying to say is,

don't forget that we are given a principle

about what a movie review should do.

I think people who struggle with this problem

often just forget that we are given this idea

of what a movie review should do,

and so when we're evaluating the impact of an answer,

we have to keep that in mind.

So let's start with answer choice A,

whereas Kelly is merely a fan.

Now, if you're tempted by this,

you're probably thinking,

oh, well, technical knowledge probably makes for a better review,

and so that's a reason why Sartor is probably better than Kelly.

If you're just a fan, then maybe your reviews won't be as good.

That's probably what you're thinking.

But if that's your line of reasoning,

my question for you is,

where are you getting the idea

that having technical knowledge of film

is something that contributes to writing better reviews?

How do you know that?

Is that like some fact about the world?

The answer is no.

That's not something that's inherently true,

and you're not getting that from the premises here,

so you're simply making an unwarranted assumption

that technical knowledge versus being a fan,

that someone with technical knowledge

is going to be more likely to write better reviews.

But if you actually just go based on the premises that we're given,

but we have no reason to think that,

so answer choice A is not going to have an impact here.

More importantly,

what does technical knowledge and being a fan have to do

with the principle that we are given about what movie reviews should do?

Remember, the author is offering us this premise

about what a movie review should do

as part of the reasoning for why Sartor is better.

So if we're going to help this argument,

we want an answer that's going to help interact with this principle

about movie reviews and what they should do.

I don't want to just bring up some random consideration

that you subjectively think is going to make for a better review.

We want to pick an answer that is going to do a better job

of connecting these premises to the conclusion,

not just find some random reason that's unrelated to these premises.

Next, let's consider B,

are unfavorable to the movie being reviewed.

Okay, but if that's true,

B is just saying that she has the same quality here that Sartor has.

Sartor is more likely to give a movie an unfavorable review,

and then B is basically saying,

okay, the same thing's true about Kelly.

But what does being more likely to give an unfavorable review

have to do with whether a review is doing what it should do?

I don't have any idea.

Notice that this principle about what a movie review should do

doesn't say anything about whether you should

write favorable reviews more or unfavorable reviews more.

We don't have any basis for saying

that someone who writes mostly bad reviews

is a good movie reviewer or bad movie reviewer.

We'd have to just make too many unwarranted assumptions

in order for answer choice B to have an impact on this argument.

So that's why B is not going to strengthen the argument.

Next, let's take a look at answer choice C,

one who is apt not to enjoy a particular movie

is more likely to realize this

by reading a review by Sartor

than a review by Kelly,

and this is something that does strengthen the argument,

although it sneaks up on me.

I don't think this is an obvious point to make

just from reading these premises.

But now that I understand what C is saying,

I can see how it's actually providing something that was missing

from the logic of this argument.

And here's what I mean.

Remember, the principle is that a movie review

should help readers determine

whether or not they are apt to enjoy the movie.

And so I should probably have written

whether or not over here.

Now we are told in the other premise

that if you're a person who is likely to enjoy the movie,

then you're more likely to realize that by reading Sartor.

But what if you're a person

who is actually not more likely to enjoy a particular movie?

Would you be more likely to realize that

from reading Sartor over a Kelly?

The argument doesn't say.

If C is true, it is supplying that missing piece.

The argument told us that Sartor was better

for people who are likely to enjoy.

And answer choice C is now supplying

the part where it says Sartor is better

for people who are not likely to enjoy the movie.

That's why answer choice C strengthens this argument.

Now if you're having trouble understanding

how C strengthens,

let me just change up the premise here a little bit

and see if it helps you understand

what's missing from the argument.

Imagine this second premise here.

Instead of saying a person who's likely to enjoy

a particular movie is much more likely to realize this

by reading Sartor than Kelly.

Imagine that it said a redheaded person

is much more likely to realize

whether they'll enjoy a movie

by reading Sartor over Kelly.

In other words, imagine that premise

is like specifying one specific kind of person

and then saying for that person,

reading Sartor is more helpful in realizing

whether they'll enjoy the movie.

Isn't that kind of weird?

How can we make this argument

if part of the argument is just specifying

one specific kind of person and saying

okay, for that person Sartor is better.

What about for all the non-redheaded people,

the blondes, the people without hair,

the people with black hair and brown hair?

Wouldn't I want to know that for all those other people

they're more likely to realize

whether they'll enjoy the movie by reading Sartor?

So that's the way that the argument was initially flawed

and answer choice C is helping to repair things.

The argument was initially flawed

because the premise just established

for this one specific kind of person

Sartor seems to be more effective.

But what about all the other people?

C is telling us about all those other people,

the people who are not going to enjoy the movie,

they find Sartor more helpful

in addition to what the premise says

which is that the people who are likely to enjoy a movie

that they find Sartor more helpful.

That's why C strengthens this argument.

Now let's understand why D and E are wrong here.

will usually help one to enjoy the movie

more than one otherwise would have.

So what D is saying is

when you read a movie reviewed by Sartor

it's going to help you find more enjoyment from the movie.

You're going to enjoy the experience more

after you read the review.

Now D is going to be very tempting

if you just ignored this premise here.

This premise is giving us criteria

for what a movie review should do.

If you're picking D,

you're probably just thinking

oh well it's like probably a good thing

to help someone enjoy the movie more, right?

Isn't that something we want movie reviews to do?

But that line of thinking has no connection

to the actual premise we were given.

So that's why D doesn't strengthen this argument.

What matters is whether the review

will help someone realize whether they'll enjoy it.

That doesn't involve the idea of like

helping someone to enjoy it more than they would have.

That's a different concept.

So that's why D is wrong.

And finally E says

are also reviewed by Kelly.

But why does this matter?

Do they have to be reviewing the same movies?

What if for example there are

10 movies that came out

and Sartor reviews these movies

and then Kelly reviews an entirely separate category of movies.

Maybe Sartor only reviews let's say action films

and then Kelly reviews horror films.

Would this situation undermine the argument?

Would it be a bad thing

if they reviewed entirely separate movies?

I don't see how.

Nothing in the premises

seemed to connect what a movie review should do

to the kind of movie that's being reviewed.

So because it doesn't hurt the argument

if they were to review entirely separate movies

it doesn't strengthen the argument to say that

oh most of the time they review the same movies.

That's an entirely irrelevant consideration.

Now I think if you're really attempted by E

you're probably thinking

oh but like wouldn't we want them to review the same movies

and so that way we can like judge them better?

Because it seems kind of weird

if we're judging one reviewer against another

but they're like not even writing about the same things.

That's probably your line of reasoning.

But the problem with that is

the principle we were given

about what a movie review should do

just says one thing.

Should help a reader know

whether they will enjoy the movie.

If Sartor does a better job of that for his readers

than Kelly does for her readers

then it seems like Sartor is better.

Now maybe I can see the idea

that we would want the same group of readers

to be reading both Sartor and reading Kelly.

So I don't want to rule out that

something similar to E might strengthen the argument.

But that's a different point.

I think it probably might help

if we have the exact same group of readers

they read Sartor and then they read Kelly

and then we see which person is more likely

to help the reader determine

whether they'll enjoy the movie.

But that's different from Sartor and Kelly

reviewing the same movies.

It's okay if they review entirely separate movies.

All we care about is

are the readers of one person

going to realize whether they'll enjoy the movie?

Are the readers of the other person

going to realize whether or not they'll enjoy the movie?

That's what we care about.

Now if you're still tempted by answer choice E

and can't see that it's irrelevant

let me give you an analogy.

Let's say we're trying to compare

two different sports writers.

They each write like a sports column

in their respective paper.

One person writes only about basketball

and then the other person writes only about baseball.

And then let's say we're trying to figure out

well who's a better sports writer?

The standard we're using is

a sports writer should provide their readers

with more insight into the sport that they're writing about.

That's the standard.

Provide your readers with more insight

into the sport that you're writing about.

Can't we use that criteria to say

oh well this person is a better sports writer

than the other person

because they give their readers

more insight into the sport they're writing about.

People who read Kelly

don't come to understand baseball very well

whereas people who read Sartor

they come to understand basketball much better.

We can still say then

that Sartor is a better sports writer than Kelly

even though they're writing about

two entirely separate sports.

The kind of sport they're writing about

has nothing to do with the criteria

for who's a better sports writer

the one that I proposed.

The same issue is going on over here.

We can still apply this criteria

even if they review entirely separate movies.

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.