- Joined
- Apr 2025
- Subscription
- Free
Admissions profile
Discussions
I’ve glanced at comments here and I’ve seen that people are having a tough time grasping why B is wrong. It’s wrong because it’s missing the comparison to the other restaurant. Just because MD could be more popular with a better location, that doesn’t mean it would be as popular or more popular than TT. Maybe MD moves to only a slightly better location and increases its customers served by 1 person per year, but TT serves loads more customers than that.
Think of each answer choice as being part of the argument and link it up with an “and.” If you added B in this way, it does nothing. You’ll also notice that you need TT to have moved to make this answer affect the strength of the argument. In contrast, doing the “and” link with D makes the argument significantly stronger.
It just means that the argument relies on assuming (presupposes) the truth of its main conclusion (what it seeks to establish).
@kashibrandi609 said:
Congrats! I appreciated when I saw your comments on video explanations :)
Thanks! I hope my comments helped somebody out there. :smile:
@reneeayetin154 said:
Congratulations!
Thank you!
I just wanted say thank you to all you wonderful people. On my third attempt, I've still scored lower than my PT average (thanks test anxiety), but I've decided to move on and apply with what I have----169 (shredder be damned), which I am beyond thrilled with. I was set on retaking in November, but I realized that I've reached the point of diminishing returns, and now it's time to leave the obsessiveness, which has served me well to this point, behind.
I've loved using 7Sage all this time---nearly a year. J.Y.'s videos have been awesome, and the supporting team and community have been likewise. Feel free to AMA if you care to.
No, this is not a strawman, which would be like the math prof. saying "so what you're saying is that math professors are bad teachers."
This is not that. This is just the math professor totally glossing over the entire point of the psych professor as if it isn't there.
It does actually strengthen because it demonstrates that the staining area is a consequence of the traits of a person’s blood and not merely the result of flawed testing conditions.
Another way to easily dismiss A and B is that they merely talk about what CAN or COULD happen rather than what IS the case. C just misses the mark because nothing in the stimulus triggers the conditions it lays out. E is easily wrong because it starts with a presumption of manslaughter and introduces a condition for which the stimulus would disqualify the medical team from manslaughter. We're left with D, which is triggered by our stimulus and which makes the argument logically complete.
Classic basic argument form: modus tollens AKA denying the consequent.
It is surprising to me that this question has such a high difficulty rating. I suppose a lot of people just don't have time for a parallel question this late in the section.
The "probably" in the stimulus totally primes you to fall for the "probably" in the trap answer.
Imagine you're Mark Twain piloting a riverboat down the Mississipi. If there's massive soil erosion in one area of the river, clogging the river with silt, your boat could run aground. That would be a problem for your water-based transportation (riverboat). You don't have to be familiar with rivers or silt to get it. Ever tried to get across town when the highways are clogged? It presents a problem for your ground-based transportation (car).
Man, I got #7 right with little difficulty but struggled with #1 and got it wrong. Lol
What got me on this one was that the correct answer choice could be read as the representatives funding the art with their own money.
Don’t like this question. It requires that you assume more hospitals = fewer fatalities and that education = skill. I don’t think these are assumptions within reason, as is usual with assumptions they ask you to make. I suppose at this stage you just have to evaluate the assumptions themselves. It is more reasonable to assume this than to assume that more hospitals does not reduce deaths and to assume that education does not lead to increased skill.
It only appears to be plural. Think about the nature of “most” and the words that could replace it here. “A portion,” “a majority,” “x percent.”
Untimed questions are the absolute bread and butter of learning on this test. I find that my study is more effective when I do untimed problem sets and fully understand the material than doing it timed and BRing. I had a tendency not to be fully engaged with BR and found this to work better for me.
Same with PTs and sections. Unless you're in late-stage prep, sections>PTs.
In my opinion, all PTs should be considered as primarily diagnostic tools, and although they should be thoroughly reviewed, the bulk of your time should be spent on timed sections and untimed problem sets.
I'm doing a couple of sections and a few 5-question LR problem sets per day. Just trying to do enough to stay "warm" but also fresh. I'm not doing another PT before the test because I can't risk a lower than expected PT score ruining my confidence.
This is what I get for not reading all choices. Somehow my BS alarm didn’t go off on C.
One of those questions that’s so hard you didn’t realize it was hard until you got it wrong.
I was so confused because I thought Chang’s argument was good. Misread the stem... spent 10 mins on this and gave up.
It means that there's nothing about them that is left to be discovered.
Identifying the conclusion about language is key. One must infer that because it doesn’t prove they have the ability to use abstract and concrete referents etc. that C is factually wrong. D is the missing premise required to reach her conclusion. If negated, there is no argument left standing.
In my mind, I had reasoned that A meant that parents’ encouragement only worked on those kids who tend to be better at sports. For some reason that made sense, but this actually strengthens the argument. Whoops.