- Joined
- Mar 2026
- Subscription
- Free
Admissions profile
Discussions
So when I started taking tests I was taking the old tests and regularly testing in the 160s and BR in the 170s but now that I’m in the new tests I dropped like 10 points and am panicking 😭 If that happened to you too, how long did it take for you to get back to the old test scoring range? 😬
Yes! This is exactly what I need to be able to get some of these concepts to become automatic. THANK YOU 7SAGE TEAM!!!!
@7SageTutor Would I be correct in saying that choice D would be the correct choice if it was a strengthen question?
@AudreyGilmour Your explanation for B helped me a lot because I was a little bit confused by what Kevin said in his explanation about "only if" introducing a necessary condition, since it seemed like it still triggered an obligation to pay. BUT now I see that the "only if" makes it so that the expectation that the action would lead other people to cause that damage means you should pay but also opens the door so that other people might also be required to pay. Like now Ms Sandstrom has to pay because she had the expectation that the action would lead other people to cause that damage BUT ALSO maybe her newspaper also has to pay because they published her column AND ALSO the Mendels business insurance will also need to pay because the farm falls under their policy. We need to find something that means ONLY Ms Sandstrom has to pay.
@SaharJannati From my understanding, you shouldn't choose an AC for sufficient answer that repeats a premise. The reason is that if you repeat the premise, that doesn't do anything to prove your condition. You essentially have a clue that you already had. That would be like playing clue and saying the killer has a rope, and then being like the killer has a rope so Colonel Mustard is the killer. Why would the killer having a rope suddenly tell us who the killer is? In this question, A is giving us a principle that proves the conclusion which and it seems like it's repeating the conclusion, but really it's giving us a principle that for sure proves the conclusion. (A) would be like having a clue saying the killer has a rope, and then being like trying to prove Colonel Mustard is the killer (conclusion), and creating a principle that says "anyone with a name that includes a condiment is definitely a killer." Notice that the principle has absolutely nothing to do with the premise. I also thought that a SA is supposed to tie the premise to the conclusion, but from this question I'm realizing that what we're really trying to do is make sure that in this scenario we guarantee the conclusion #help is that right?
I've been spamming the valid inference game and it definitely helped on the last PT I took - thanks 7sage!