@AvishaiTaylor Practicing this routine during untimed drills teaches me to do this quicker in PT's and Sections.

@RT.IBL of course! For MC its "does this support, or is it the final claim being supported?" For flaws, I test them "is this what the argument does? Are there key words in the stim that indicate the flaw, and key words in the AC that exclude it from being correct?" and "if this was the flaw, what would it look like in an argument I would come up with" - this tests my understanding of the flaw AND whether the flaw matches. For STR and WEAK I 1) identify the type of argument (phen-hyp, factors, counter-pos. cond, caus) then I identify the type of STR or WEAK AC's relevant to the argument type and ask myself, "does this decrease/increase plausibility, is it an illusory inconsistency, directionally wrong, alt hype?". For Parallel reasoning and PF I always identify the MoR - "is it conditional, causal or something else, how exactly does the argument proceed?". Then match that to the AC - not getting bogged down in the details of the argument. These I typically get quite quick. For NA, i am ALWAYS skeptical of AC's that have strong language like "all, always, never etc." and ask myself "does the author HAVE to assume this". For SA, I love to look at AC's and see if the AC reverses the conditional (putting the conclusion as the suff. instead of the nec. - but I also TEST the contrapositive of those AC's)." in MBT I mentally diagram and assign conditionals as one letter variables like (X, Y, Z, A, B, C). MSS I always ask "does the stim give me enough info to make this inference" and for answers that have strong language I always ask "does the stim tell us about ALL of these things" and "can I support that answer with the information i'm given?". RRE i ask "what is the discrepancy here?" before even checking the AC's. For AP, I ask "is this supporting something, is it being supported itself?" and "what is the MC of this argument"?

@RT.IBL yeah, so everytime I come into a PT or section, I get excited, but I get excited to do well. Like I imagine myself getting perfect or almost perfect, then get excited. Its a bit of delusion. That makes me happy and gets rid of my stress. For engaging, I read quietly, but aloud the stimulus, and critically review it, highlight MPs, Conclusions and premises. Like, I do my best to find the "notable assumption" even if thats not in the Q Stem. Then dissect the stim based on the type of question I have. For every question type I have an "ask this" routine. It truly helps. Thats the approach I take.

If only all LR questions were like this...

So we are supposed to assume that the deer are part of the most wildlife? thats literally why I eliminated AC A....dammit

This is so amazing, congratulations!!!

Incredible work!

I hope this helps at least one person in the near future, and i'll try to keep this as brief as possible:

1. In necessary assumptions, correct answers will typically contain weak language - a useful tool for POE.

2. There will sometimes be concepts in the conclusion which are not stated in the premises - there is the assumption (this is prevalent in questions tagged with Link Assumption).

3. Negating will destroy the argument. Because think about it, in conditionals, negating the necessary renders an argument invalid, same goes for here - negating the necessary assumption will render the argument broken

In this instance, the correct AC was weak, addressed the missing link in the argument and, by negating it, ruined the argument.

That hat is so sick, I need to get one now

@JTF2005 thank you JTF!

This is super impressive! Congratulations!

@allstarsimi Thank you!!

@ZulymarPerez Quality over quantity. Looking for patterns in repeated mistakes. If I fell for traps, I would note which type of trap it was, why I fell for it, and what to look out for next time. This way I could recognize what was a trap and what wasn't. Why the right answer was right, why the others were wrong. I did this for RC (highlighting support for my answers) and for LR.

@Lidiia Before my break, I was doing 1 PT a week, and taking multiple sections per day - prioritizing quantity over quality. After my break, I reset all of my analytics and data, so I could get an accurate readings of my strengths and weaknesses this time. Doing one PT a week.

@Isabella! Well, for all the question i got wrong - i would ask why, since most points came from second guessing and failing, it was a confidence problem. Many times i was between two answers and guessed. But by forcing myself to explain why it was wrong and why the right answer was right, I was able to develop a much more complete understanding of the answers I would choose and become more confident. For RC, I also would ALWAYS highlight support for the answers I chose, since the answer come from support within the passage. This way, I would be a lot more confident, and if i got it wrong, I could go back and find exactly why I got it wrong, instead of guessing.

@jjjellopants my confidence in the answer I choose. Before i would debate myself - like: "this looks like the best answer, but this one is also strong, im unsure". By explaining to myself why its right and the better answer, i am able to confidently choose the right answer instead of the one that feels right.

@BrynnaM well, when you find the answer you believe is right, highlight/find evidence that supports your answer. Everytime i answer a question (BR or not) i always find the evidence to rid myself of the second guessing