I simply cannot understand how D is wrong. I still see that the Employee's argument is flawed in its assumption that behavior (being unprofessional) that can sometimes result in certain consequences (Vernon's firing) is a kind of behavior that always results in this outcome.

So just because a part (Vernon) of the whole (unprof. employees) was fired and the Employee is arguing that similar treatment must be shared amongst the whole, are we not creating a false fabrication to just implicitly believe that all these unprof. employees had similar starting points? (or that perhaps there were additional factors like performance?)

Perhaps Vernon is a repeat offender, and although the level of unprofessionalism conducted by both Vernon and others (the "behavior") can justify being fired, isn't it a huge flaw for the Employee to assume that that same consequence must be shared no matter who is conducting it? The fact that "the author points to examples of people who were not fired, but unprofessional" seems to me to only further expand on the fact that D exemplifies a massive flaw: Assuming that equal reactions must take place in order to guarantee consistency.

I am super confused (clearly lol) and would love some further explanation. Please help 😢

@ScienceAlex Quite literally perfect advice imo. I must add on to the 1.5 min time limit note too. It should not be in your mind as a hard rule (but rather as a fairly solid general thought to maintain in your periphery while testing), especially if you are someone who is capable of consistently getting even ~5 question correct with each taking under 50s. In that case I find that if I'm on a time sink for 2 minutes, then I have roughly 10s to flag and move on.

@EzraG Honestly, mindset. I found that not becoming discouraged and instead attacking problem areas, like seeing where you are consistently going wrong and then doing drills that target those weakpoints really closed the gap at least for me. Most people have specific question types or themes that link their problem areas and locating that really helped me.

But most importantly, don't beat yourself up!!! Do whatever it takes to not lose motivation, whether that means treating yourself or taking a little you day, do it and come back encouraged. After a bad PT I found that literally going on a walk and buying a super pricey iced coffee really made me calm down and approach bouncing-back with the required level-headedness.

@afk Thanks!! Yeah thats true!

@EzraG Tyyy!! Consistency in test performance or staying consistent when studying?

@Bonnibel175 Thank you!!!

@Marissa20 Thanks!!!

@jtalavera Thank you!!! Its certainly doable, but definitely took me a while lol.

@ConnerKline "AC D"

I am just a person in similar shoes, so not sure if my input truly carries much weight, but I think frankly that sounds like an extremely reasonable goal! For me, breaking into 170s has really come down to tweaks so small that I was only able to achieve them by repetition and continued effort.

Reviewing whats getting in your way and seeing if there's commonality there is of course a smart strategy. But beyond that I really find that the difference between high 160s and 170+ is endurance; at least for me; and endurance is really only something you can steadily build to.

Time management and not getting burnt out is really key to attaining those last couple of points of improvement. It really is like a war of attrition where its easy to be worn down. I personally found success in developing my endurance and ability to stay focused. (for me this was via testing sections repeatedly and frankly, reading books (like sit down, find a linguistically challenging, lengthy read and read it while maintaining a grasp on the text's contents))

All in all you are doing truly great and should feel amazing!!! At the high 160s, you have a fantastic base and I think that final push is certainly doable!