- Joined
- Jul 2025
- Subscription
- Core
Admissions profile
Discussions
@KristoferMuhr Wholeheartedly agree. Some questions are completely contradictory to basic strategy and I am upset that I wasted any brainpower thinking about this one.
So we are required to assume that intention is a facet of fraud? Isn't that completely counterintuitive to everything that 7Sage teaches about not assuming anything that is not written in the stim?
Has anyone else noticed drastic differences in accuracy between their initial attempts versus their blind review? I just finished an RC section scoring 7 less incorrect answers on my blind review compared to my first take and this is not an anomaly.
I was wondering whether anyone was able to bridge this gap and how they went about doing it.
Couldn't there also be the possibility that there are more pin-tipped etching tools than bladed etching tools? That would be a sufficient assumption to guarantee the conclusion.
@clarktoo I am on the same wavelength as you. What I found to be beneficial as an alternative to mapping is just highlighting. I leave context and irrelevant information blank, highlight indicators one color, conditions in another, and premises/conclusions with another (depends on the question type).
Really depends on what the other question was. In an MBT, this wouldn't fit, but in this scenario, it weakens the author's main principle that "the risk is minimal" because "only a single gene in about 750,000 has been changed." If that claim is not true it makes it possible that some plants with that trait can harm humans