This felt so intuitive to me. It was just clear that the answer would be that the new department has at least 50 people to hire. Is it necessary to diagram when you intuitively know the answer? Or is it a best practice to diagram only when you're not so sure?

The lesson right before this makes AP questions clear to me. I wrote down the following notes of the basic roles of the argument parts:

1. Context/other people's argument

2. Premise

3. Major premise/sub-conclusion

4. Main conclusion

Remember that AP questions will infrequently ask for main conclusion because it's, generally, easier to spot and label. So, be ready to pick out labels 1-3. When seeing the except in this example, I realized, after reading the stimulus, it's the other people's argument. So, I'm looking for that kind of answer, which D does.

Would it be fair to use the pre-phrasing technique when you know the answer choice is explicit? I looked at the question, then read the stimulus, and said to myself they disagree about whether the stories clearly have immoral characters. I saw D within a few seconds. Can this work on all questions that are explicit?

The subject -> predicate was a lightbulb moment. Thank you for explaining it that way!

Hi! Can anyone explain why, in question 1, you have to go all the way back to J, Jedi, and not F, Force user? I would have chosen A, is not a Force user, because Tom fails the necessary condition of having years of training. It's also true that if he is not a Force user, then he is also not a Jedi, which was the correct answer. But if the fails the next condition in the chain, why do you have to go all the way back to the front, J? Or do you? Thank you!! Lost here! :)

Very proud of myself lol. I used the shallow dip and answered correctly in 2:41. Now, how that's 1:15 over the goal timing.... Idk. Probably gonna be cooked on these, but this did boost my confidence lol.

The cost-benefit analysis tip in the review SAVED ME on this. If the author's reasoning is cost-benefit analysis, then the author must assume the cost/benefits don't outweigh those of the argument. That doesn't sound very clear without an example, so use this question as the example. The author says that the manufacturing plants would greatly reduce their electric bills, thereby saving money, if they invest in the generators that would convert their "free" heat into energy. That means the author is saying the potential to save money on electric bills outweighs the cost of the generators. Answer choice C accomplishes that same idea.

Something that helped me in this scenario is to pretend to be the person responding. If I were talking to someone who said the stimulus, I'd likely respond with something like A. "Maybe magnetic fields are effective, but what if knowing they were there played a role and it wasn't just the magnets?" Something that pokes holes in the physician's support, like the placebo effect.

5/5 but I'm taking a little over two minutes per question. Any tips for how to be faster at these? Just more practice or is there a helpful nugget I'm overlooking?