Here's what I wrote for my Blind Review, if this helps anyone:

A: must be correct because a comparison between species of fishes becoming extinct is being compared to the overall rate of animal extinction patterns of all animals. We do not have any information on whether the pattern of fish extinctions is corroborative unto the general population of animals as a whole. An answer to this question that A poses would resolve this unknown information needed to properly assess the argument made.

_

B: The numerosity of the populations before extinction does not matter. Extinction is a binary concept and does not depend upon how large or small the population was before extinction or how fast they went extinct. All animal populations go small before extinction.

C: Who cares if they originated outside of North America? Perhaps they are making the suggestion that maybe these species that went extinct in North America were somehow more prone to becoming extinct because they weren't from here. Not relevant.

D: Again, extinction is a binary option and does not depend upon the number of living animals. In this case of D, it is that concept paired with recuperation of populations not mattering in the summation of overall extinction rates.

E: This might suggest somehow that perhaps the fish went extinct because they were overfished or something, but that still does not speak to the rates of overall animal extinction, which is the primary topic of this argument

For real, but it was the only thing I was left with after realizing A was wayyyyyyy too broad. ANY manufactured good?

Look below in the comments.

Phenomenology is a beautiful field of study!

I had the hardest time with this during my PT. During BR, it stuck out so clearly. There is one VERY simple fact for why C is right. C shows us that there are products labeled to specifically broadcast that they do not contain chemical pesticides. This carries the assumption that Jason, despite going to a store where there are companies unloading produce with chemicals, only gets the produce that is LABELED.

It would be a stronger refutation to Yu if this carried assumption was explicitly stated, but it is not a far-reach or a stretch to assume Jason only gets the labeled produce if he is already mindful of that in his restaurant marketing.

There's a little bookmark/flag next to the question stem in a blue outline. See you around :)

Yes I am. And you? I'm guessing June or August?

"If someone realized they need to look for the one, single, only answer choice with a probabilistic conclusion, that someone could probably get this question right in 30-40 seconds" :)

If anyone wants to study together, let me know.

I'm going to be keeping track of questions that are super difficult for me, and I just don't have the correct perspective to get them right. Well, I can probably figure out any question when given enough time, but I believe having a different person to consult with on questions would speed up the process significantly--mutually.

You're very welcome!

I haven't had anyone take me up on the offer, but you seem about as active as me on here, and you're near the end of the lessons. Is there any chance you'd find any utility in studying together once you're through all this? I tried looking at the "Study Buddies" section of the website, but I don't have high hopes of creating a study group through it.

Take care.

Yes

Strangely, this isn't covered in this course for some reason. Generally, questions get harder the further along the 25 questions you go. Sometimes the test writers purposely put the hardest question at like #22 so you waste time on it and don't have enough time to then do a good analysis of 23, 24, and 25.

Also, more generally, this lesson sort of explains it. Read the stimulus and the question stem, and judge if it's too hard for you to answer based on what you know of yourself and that type of question.

So are you saying that we should not focus on the timing for whole PTs at least at the very beginning? Unlimited time? Does that go against the previous video where we were told to not take breaks or whatnot just because we can on whole PTs?

For those of you confused: I will try to explain the motive behind both flagging a question and keeping a wrong answer journal, though I think it should just be called an answer journal #feedback. (My comment below reveals I didn't even know how to do this even though I was aware J.Y. said to flag them). I am also aware J.Y. might just explain this in the next lessons again. I really don't know where I saw him talk about this before. Maybe it was at the beginning of the Logical Reasoning section.

I went back after writing this, and yeah, it's in the logical reasoning section, but I swear there was a video for this concept before: https://7sage.com/lesson/the-importance-of-blind-review/

FLAGGING: Flagging a question simply means you weren't one-hundred percent (or, in my mind: like >95%) confident in your answer. Flagging allows you to quickly come back later on and review something you feel like you had a chance at getting wrong.

During the Blind Review (BR) process, you might find that you flag a large amount of questions. however, this is natural. This will reduce over time for two reasons I personally believe. You flagged a lot because you are either not inherently confident in yourself, or you are at the beginning of your studying journey (or both). As you study and go through more Practice tests (PTs), you will find that you feel you are and are getting more and more answers correct. This will naturally lower the number of questions you need to review later on. If you are one of those people like me, who are not inherently confident in yourself, who flag everything, you will find more and more often that your anxious worries were for nothing, and that will boost your baseline confidence, and those number of flagged questions will reduce. In either case, you will most likely be spending less and less time in the future flagging questions and doing blind reviews. You will simply be trying to hone your skills rather than learning the base process of how to do the questions in these PTs or drills.

ANSWER JOURNAL: Sometimes you flag something you got right. You still review it and solidify your reasoning. If you go through more methodically and find out you were wrong (or feel like you were wrong), you will write out why you now think the wrong answers are wrong and why the correct answer was wrong. Maybe you also write down why you changed your answer during BR, and maybe you also write down why you came to the conclusion you did during the drill or PT. You will then, after BR, come back and find out if your reasoning was correct or not. Writing this stuff down makes you hold yourself accountable for how you solved the question. If you come back after the BR and find out you were using flawed reasoning during any portion of your PT or BR, you shatter that notion in your mind and analyze why you were wrong. If you find out you were right to make a certain assumption or choice, you try and solidify that line of reasoning.

Hey, would you mind sharing how you format a document like that? It would be super helpful. Thanks! Although, I'm guessing you probably can't even access this anymore if you're not actively studying.

I didn't even know we could flag questions. Damn.

B is wrong because there are probably some people back then (certainly are nowadays) who would stare at the sun. Are we really going to think that Author B is asserting that Author A would argue there was certainly an evolutionary psychological explanation for this dumb behavior? Did Author A's argument contain an assumption that would also explain there is a selfish gene responsible for staring at the sun? No; I don't think so. AC B is wrong because, as Kevin said, it is too extreme.

Also, congrats to everyone who has made it through! I'm excited but also scared at the same time lol.

I found this one easy to get because it seemed to me like Author B was being degrading of evolutionary psychology by facetiously anthropomorphizing the genes themselves, almost as if the genes within a single person or amongst entities with shared genes were secretly conspiring to have their genetic material proliferated further without the conscious knowledge of the humans or animals they "inhabited," if that makes sense.

I thought it was quite clear Author B was speaking directly about the genes conspiring, not the evolutionary psychologists conspiring to explain this certain theory.

You probably already know this, but I'll clarify for the sake of others and to help solidify the reasoning for myself. It's generally simple I think. Although, I understand others have trouble with this question. There are plenty of times when I am stumped by something that is clear to many others.

The reason it is not D is because Author B does not show any indication of being skeptical towards evolutionary theory at all. Author B could very well be an evolutionary theorist but simply disagrees with the way that evolutionary psychologists attempt to answer the question of evolution. This is similar to how there were different groups of scientists disagreeing about the explanation of facts of the LHB (Late Heavy Bombardment) in that earlier question we went over. Just like they all agreed that there was an LHB period, author A and author B here could both agree that evolutionary theory as a whole is the correct answer to why certain behaviors or aspects of species have come to be.

Author B being negative towards one school of evolutionary theory does not mean they are being negative towards evolutionary theory as a whole at all. Just because the LHB scientists did not agree with each other about their theories on the LHB does not mean that they were at all critical of the existence of LHB as a whole.

Bonus: B is the correct answer choice because it's simply plainly true. Author A is an advocate for evolutionary psychology. Author B disagrees with that school of thought. Now that D is clearly not the right answer, that only leaves our choice of B being the correct answer choice to choose.

Kevin could have said this already. Sorry. I haven't listened to the video yet.

Is the "only if" here still being used as a Group 2 indicator?

If you have to read passage b for the other questions, just wait until then. If you're able to answer, with certainty, every other quest pertaining to the two passages, and this is the only question left, it's a no-brainer to simply read the sentence and its context. Otherwise, you're wasting your time by overlapping the time it takes to read that sentence through twice over.

how so?

I'll be honest: my instincts after reading the answers led me to the correct choice here, but some other answers could be right based on their potential support in passage B. I wouldn't risk it on test day.

It's so satisfying to cross off the two and leave the other three remaining before watching the video and then watching the same result unfold. It's even more satisfying to see the same exact reasoning revealed. I love this method.

No. On the particular day this individual sent this message, they were writing multiple disparaging comments across the website. That's part of the context for this message I sent.

If that's not what you're referring to, also no. Slowing down for sake of keeping a calm mind does, in the end, usually provide a sizable return on investment vis-a-vis overall timing on the test.

Hope that clears it up. Have a good evening.

Translation into what? Logic or something more understandable, like regular speech?

Also, thank you very much for your reply. All effort is greatly appreciated.