@RyanAlexander If you go to the drills section, you can set up a custom drill that will only use fresh questions, so you're not getting repeats. I think you can choose to use questions you've seen but didn't answer or got wrong as well. There's quite a few options you can play around with. Like selecting question types, difficulty, and I think which PTs they're taken from. Hope this helps and isn't redundant for you! Good luck!

@rc39 I think the difficulty of the questions should indicate it. If it's all 4-5 level of difficulty, that would be hard difficulty. If it's mostly 1-2, that should be easy difficulty. And medium would be in the 3 range. You can also go to the drills section and set up a drill that will only include specific question types and difficulty.

@saulgoodman13 You could drill a few more of these, then move on and keep working through the lessons. I don't think you're supposed to aim for perfection while going through the lessons. When you do drills later, try to focus on your weakest areas. What I always did was drill the areas that 7Sage analytics said I could get the biggest point boost from. I would do 10-15 question drills of those areas on Medium-Hard difficulty, then do deep dive review on the ones I got wrong or flagged. This helped me see not only what I got wrong, but why and how. Oftentimes, as I would deeply break down the question and answers, it would come with an epiphany of what specifically held me back. I also keep a thorough wrong-answer journal. Sometimes I use AI to analyze my wrong answer journal and look for patterns in what I wrote for what I was struggling with and why.

This is just my preferred strategy. I consistently PT between 168-171 without accommodations. In September, I took my first official test and underperformed with a heartbreaking 166. I hadn't scored that low on a PT for weeks leading up to the test. My PTs before the test were in the low 170s. But I have accommodations for October and November now. I have a neurodegenerative disease and diagnosed ADHD, so the pressure and fatigue set in really bad on my first official test. With letters from my doctors, I was approved for basically every accommodation we thought would help me. The reason I'm including this is so you can better judge whether you trust my advice or not. Either way, I hope you do FANTASTIC on your test!

#help. I do not see how E is incorrect.

The historians obviously let their aesthetic preferences influence their teleological narrative of the progression of jazz towards autonomy from capitalistic forces, hence why only once these ties were severed did jazz truly become "art" in their eyes. Swing outlived it's artistic purposes, in their view, because it was being propped up by commercial forces, not genuine artistic expression. The fact that genuine artistic expressions need to be autonomous from capitalistic motives IS an aesthetic preference. And it's this preference towards anticapitalism that skews their entire view of the telos of bebop.

The author says the historians' teleological historical narrative of jazz' progression culminating in the genre severing ties with commercialism is incorrect, because such analysis idealizes the circumstances of artistic expression, and represses the reality that all musical entertainment has relations to commerce. How could these historians improperly idealize certain aspects of artistic expression, and repress other aspects they dislike, without having an improper influence from their personal aesthetic preferences? The historians treat anti-consumerism as the aesthetic principle behind bebop, and therefore devalue earlier, more commercial forms of jazz. They project this aesthetic preference backwards onto the history of jazz, construing bebop's supposed severing of commercial ties as the overarching telos of the genre.

A: This must be false because we know right away from the stimmy that investment is not decreasing. Knowing that investment is not decreasing logically leads us to validly infer that the economy is not weak, due to the contrapositive of the conditional chain laid out in the stimmy. A is saying that one of them must be true, but neither can be true; therefore, A must be a false statement.

B: We do not know from the stimmy what happens if unemployment rises, other than investment decreases. Investment decreasing does not tell us anything about prices remaining constant. S

C: This cannot be false, because the conditional chain in the stimmy dictates that it must be true. It's logically equivalent to: A -> B -> C ; A -> C. The stimmy gives us: A -> B -> C ; and answer C gives us: A -> C. Therefore, it must be true.

D: We know the economy is not weak, but we don't know if prices are remaining constant. We also don't know what happens if prices remain constant. Based on the stimmy we cannot conclude that this statement must be false. The statement could be true, or it could be false.

E: We know from the stimmy that unemployment is not rising, because we know that investment is not decreasing. Therefore, we can take the contrapositive of the second sentence in the stimmy to validly infer that unemployment must not be rising. This also allows us to infer that the economy is not rising. Therefore, since both parts are true, then this statement must be true.

@ejosefsberg The stimmy says attacks on your opponent's character do not confront their argument; therefore, attacks on character should be avoided. If the attacks don't address the opponent's argument, then they definitely do not address every argument; therefore, they should be avoided in accordance to the principle in answer choice C.

Principle: ConfEveryArg -> AVOID

Premise 1: AttOnChar -> ConfOppArg

Valid inference: CEA -> COA ; COA -> CEA

---------------------------------------------------

Conclusion: AOC -> AVOID

Full chain: AOC -> COA -> CEA -> AVOID

@sbregan8 If the principle in answer choice E, which says that all commitments ARE morally neutral if... yadda yadda, is taken to be valid, then it really helps justify the argument in the stimmy, which says that all commitments should be SEEN as morally neutral because... pretty much same yadda yadda.

The essayist lays out an example that is undeserving of praise and uses that to justify his conclusion. That example would trigger the principle in answer choice E. The essayist's conclusion is weaker than the principle, so if the stronger principle is valid, then the essayist's weaker conclusion is also very likely justified. If the essayist was drawing a stronger conclusion than the principle guarantees, then that principle would not help justify the essayist's reasoning.

It doesn't ask which principle guarantees the essayist's reasoning is valid, just which principles most helps to justify the reasoning. It's not a huge leap in logic to assume that if something is morally neutral, then it's justified to say it should be seen as morally neutral. Especially using basically the same reasoning. It'd take some wacky (but still possible) logic for it to be unjustified to say something should be seen as what it is.

This was so painfully obvious upon blind review... LMAO

@LSATLOVER The reasoning given for the tariff is to protect a unique way of life. The stimmy clearly lays out that domestic production of fruit is less efficient than imported fruit, but suggests tariffs to artificially keep the farming way of life intact. Otherwise, the free market would shift to the more efficient industrial production and import better, cheaper fruit. Therefore, they obviously value the social concern of preserving a way of life more than economic efficiency. No outside knowledge required about tariffs, they explain it all in the stimulus.

Tangentially, tariffs are generally economically inefficient, because tariffs reduce total surplus and create a net negative on economic welfare, called a deadweight loss. In the global free trade market, economies specialize according to their comparative advantage. It is almost always more economically efficient to allocate resources to producing the goods and services you can make most efficiently, and importing other goods that are produced more efficiently elsewhere. Tariffs artificially inflate the cost of foreign goods by taxing domestic importers, who then pass the additional cost down to the consumer. This stimulates and encourages domestic production that is less efficient than foreign production. This creates two separate shortfalls on the supply-demand graph, a production distortion loss and a consumption distortion loss, that combine to make the total deadweight loss. This is value that disappears entirely from the economy due to the tariffs.

Loss of consumer surplus - (tax revenue generated + producer surplus) = the net loss to economic welfare/deadweight loss.

Hope this helps! :)

Got this one right in under a minute!

But... I missed a slightly easier one on the drill because I misinterpreted a sentence in the stimmy.

It's always interesting to me which ones are supposed to be "harder" or "easier" than others. I consistently do really well on 5/5 difficulty questions, but either blunder or waste time on 3s and 4s. I wish I could figure out why.

Does anyone else experience this?

Hey! Pretty close to the right answer!

My principle: Children generally learn words for objects based on the utility of the object, so sometimes they misidentify new objects with similar utility as objects they've already encountered.

@magelladecle14499 You got this! Keep drilling and taking PTs! Your score WILL improve!

@ActuallyJozu Damn, I was harsh af here... my apologies

@hannah.ismael24 Remember, this is asking which would most likely give similar advantages. Not which one would absolutely give the exact same advantages.

The advantage of C-4 photosynthesis is that it prevents excess oxygen from binding to the rubisco, preventing the production of carbohydrates. Which is most similar to what answer choice B says.

Gaseous carbon dioxide being unable to enter the bundle sheath cells is not an advantage. It is a byproduct of these cells protecting all atmospheric gases from entering, so that overly abundant oxygen doesn't bind to the rubisco. This is why gaseous carbon dioxide is transformed into the C-4 molecule, so it can enter the bundle sheath cells. Then, once the C-4 molecule enters the bundle sheath cell, it undergoes another reaction to release the carbon dioxide, so that the rubisco can bind to the carbon dioxide and produce carbohydrates.

This is all laid out in paragraph 3 of the stimmy.

Hope this helps!

I almost immediately picked B, but for some reason my brain said, "Nah, that's too different from C-4 crops! They have rubisco!" Even though the question was asking which would provide a similar advantage. Damn me for second guessing myself. It just seemed too easy.

Still, only -1 on this passage doesn't feel too bad, since all the questions are 3+ difficulty.

If they weren't present in the region 5KYA, then the argument falls apart. 

I rejected B, because I thought that if the stimulus outright stated something as a premise, then that means it's not an assumption. However, the stimmy only said they were 5,000 years old and found in this region, not that they were present in the region 5KYA. They could have been brought to the region much more recently than 5KYA. If they weren't present 5KYA.

A neater way to write Q2 would be:

B or J -> R -> A -> S

S -> A -> R -> B & J

I don't think this is right, actually lmao

Evolve -> Reach Full Potential & Get Stronger in Battle

GSiB or RFP -> E

Evolve -> Capable of Evolving -> Well-Trained -> Trained -> Reach Full Potential.

Fun fact: If Westerville accounted for any more than ~87.3% of the total student body, it would be mathematically impossible for Harrison University to have 38% of students taking night classes. Not without exceeding the limit of 100% of Pulham students taking at least one night class, which would be impossible.

@Loren The stimmy says that all students at Harrison University live in one of two places: Westerville or Pulham. This establishes that there are two mutually exclusive groups of students, so there's no crossover to complicate anything.

The stimmy also says,"38 percent of Harrison students take at least one night class," which means that stat is taken from the totality of the student body, which necessarily encompasses all students living in Westerville and Pulham.

Therefore, the 38% figure has to be an average of the two groups, because they both contribute to the totality of the student body from which the stat is derived.

Then the stimmy says 29% of students living in Westerville take night class. It does not say 29% of students taking night classes live in Westerville. This is a huge difference and is probably the main error that is fucking up your math.

You math is neglecting to consider all the students living in either place that do not take night classes that are still accounted for in the total student body.

If 38% of Harrison students take night classes, then 62% do not.

If 29% of Westerville students take night classes, then 71% do not.

If 9% of Pulham students take night classes (like you thought), then 91% do not.

Your math would somehow mean 38% of Harrison students take night classes and 162% do not. It just makes no sense.

Hope this helps!

@bradley29kc790 The stimulus absolutely does not say that 29% of students taking night classes live in Westerville. It says 29% of students living in Westerville take night classes. That is a HUGE distinction. Hope this helps. Good luck!