First, it's important with these kinds of questions to note that we're asked to weaken the columnists ARGUMENT, not the entire stimulus. First, we are given some context, which is NOT part of the argument. We're told that these are banned pesticides, still in use, that are manufactured by the US and exported to other countries. Then the argument begins, telling us that:

• This jeopardizes the health of the people in those countries

• Increases risk to US consumers. Why? Because the people in those countries use the pesticides on their own products, that are then sold to US consumers.

So, we don't need to weaken anything about the existence of these pesticides, or how long they've been in use, as we accept this as true context for the issue at hand. We want to weaken something that links the practice of manufacturing these products with either posing a risk on other countries, or posing a risk on US consumers.

A - This doesn't address either of the above points, this just tells us a fact that has no bearing on the argument, true or false

B - The argument never claims that ALL or a MAJORITY of pesticides are causing harm, just that there are certain pesticides that do so. This doesn't have a bearing on our argument

D - This doesn't contradict anything the argument said. The argument said that this practice harms both, and this just states it harms one more than the other, not weakening.

E - we don't care about "many pesticides" we care about the certain pesticides mentioned.

C - this gives some counterargument. This is basically implying that since other countries do this identical practice, the US's participation in this practice isn't GREATLY increasing health risk, because they're just one of many others doing the same thing. If the US stopped, then presumably consumers would still be at health risk due to other countries doing this practice.

A - thickness is never mentioned, immediately reject

B - We're led to believe the stratosphere begins after the equator, so poles aren't even in the stratosphere

C - North pole? We don't know anything about that

E - No idea what would contribute to a decrease in the troposphere, we only know the methodology at which the temperature in the stratosphere increases/decreases

D - This makes sense. This essentially says that at the top of the stratosphere, the temperature is going to be at least as warm as at the top of the troposphere. And we know that once you get into the stratosphere and continue going up, temperature can only get warmer.

Our stimulus says:

Increased efforts to preserve habitats have not prevented rate of extinction from increasing, so these efforts are wasted.

Weakening prediction: Something that would mean these efforts aren't wasted, despite the rate of extinction still increasing - perhaps the idea that without these efforts, more animals would be extinct

A - just because scientists are better able to preserve these habitats, this doesn't mean that this is due to increased international efforts, or that this ability has translated to actual protection

C - irrelevant, the raw number of extinct species doesn't strengthen or weaken the argument

D - Nothing in the stimulus to suggest we need to mention economic benefit

E - This just speaks to some additional information about the efforts, but doesn't give an idea why these programs wouldn't be a wasted effort

B - initially, I was hesitant here because of the mention of "animal refuges", and if that correlated with the idea of protection of habitat. After eliminating the other choices, this one is left, and though it is an assumption, I think it is a relatively small one, that implementation of conservation efforts may include the establishment of refuges.

I wasn't a fan of JY's explanations as I feel like he didn't touch on much of the subtle wording that makes the wrong answers wrong. Here is my attempt:

A - If this were a development in the last decade, it could work, but it just described "many students" not a change over 10 years.

B - This answer choice tripped me up the most, and is what I initially selected. It's wrong for several reasons:

• non-specific: It doesn't tell us why chemistry completers fell given it's entrants didn't. Overall decline is typically due to fewer people starting degrees, but here we know the input didn't change. This doesn't resolve that discrepancy.

• Not explanatory: This could be true overall, i..e it could be the case that physics and chemistry declined while chemistry stayed constant or rose. It still doesn't explain WHAT has occurred to cause chemistry students not to complete their degrees as often, despite the same amount entering.

• doesn't engage with the job-prospects angle: if all the sciences are down, then why would chemistry, the one with an improving payoff, still see fewer finishers? If anything, a broad decline in the sciences + better chemistry jobs would lead you to think more people would ensure they complete their chemistry degrees.

C - similar to A, this could be true, but it doesn't say "within the past 10 years". Also, it doesn't explain the decline in chemistry specifically.

D - the stimulus specifically says "better than ever". Even if they are no better than other prospects, it doesn't explain why there would be a decline.

E - though this requires some assumptions, it is the only answer choice that possibly makes sense. "Over the years" specifically relates to a recent development in the desired time-frame. We have that students are entering chemistry classes, and then being diswayed from finishing due to lack of intellectual appeal

Here is what helped me understand why B is wrong (even though it is what I initially selected), as I don't think JY's explanation was very good.

Based on the stimulus, we need something to support the idea that the play was either created before 1431 or after 1471 (challenging the boundaries of the timeline)

B: According to B, there was a coin mentioned that was minted in 1422. This only tells us that the play must have been written sometime after 1422, which could still very well be in the given timeline. Think of it this way: suppose I wrote a play in 2025, and I mentioned the 9/11 attack. Does this suggest that the play was written prior to 2025? NO! It just means that it was written sometime after 2001.

D: This actually suggests that the play could have been written prior. Our only evidence for it being written after 1431 is the idea that a coin mentioned in the play had just come out at this time. But if it had been known about prior, it could have been written about prior as well.

Hello, this is very much possible. I began studying in July with a 156 diagnostic, and am currently PTing around the 167-169 range (with some variability) and I am registered to take the test in October. Here are my suggestions:

• It is much better to study 1-2 solid hours heavily focused compared to 6-8 hours. I am honestly not sure what you could even do for 8 hours studying wise without burning out.

• Focus on doing drills a lot more than "learning the logic". I know 7sage has courses but I found them to be very confusing and over complicated, when often you can get an intuition for a lot of questions after you see them enough times, and understanding why the correct answer is correct.

• At this point - and this may seem counterintuitive - slow down. If you want a 158, you can still afford to get quite a few questions wrong on the test (5+ per section). That means you have a much better chance improving your score by slowing down and instead of trying to answer 25 questions in a section (and as a result, rushing through most and answering inaccurately), slow down and aim to answer 18-20 questions per section, and just guess the last few in the last 1 minute or so. This way, you have a much higher chance of getting 20/25 correct, and mathematically, you have a high probability of getting 1 of the 5 correct too.

• This is the biggest tip that helped me: you need to understand that there is only ONE right answer, and as a consequence, 4 WRONG answers. Often we kid ourselves into thinking that we chose the "second best" answer, or the "trap answer". But any answer that isn't correct is wrong for one reason or another. Which brings me to my final point:

• Be very honest with yourself as to why you got an answer incorrect. When I first started studying, I would look at the correct answer and tell myself: "Oh that makes sense, I just misread the question". But this isn't true generally. Firstly, the questions are very carefully crafted, and not only did I not select the right answer, I also chose the WRONG answer - which means I had to have had a misunderstanding of the question as a whole, not just misreading it.