Have you taken a diagnostic? I would a PT if you haven't done your diagnostic PT. It's just to see where you are at before you start any intensive prep. Don't be discouraged by the outcome, it just shows you what you'll need to focus on once you finish the Foundations and what to focus on more closely when you start the CC

Take a break from it. This week I've been just doing maintenance drills. No heavy stuff, no PT, did a set of RC drills to mimic a section but nothing like a real section. You can't cram things in the week of the test, and it's probably counterintuitive to do so.

Take care of yourself, maybe don't do too many drills, focus on watching the explanation videos, etc. I'd say go do things you like to do and maybe throw in some meditation/mindfulness exercises/breathing exercises too. I wouldn't push yourself on the week of the test.

You want to be up and ready to rock and roll on Saturday. Save the energy and mental energy for Saturday. You've done all the hard work in the weeks leading up to now. Keep your head up and stay positive!

It is otherwise diagrammed (correct me if I am mistaken).

Let's say we have a rule: A -> B

If we are told, it is otherwise, then this means our "it is otherwise" rule is now: /A -> /B

Is this correct?

I misread the question stem so bad. Read A and was like, great fits the PSA. Moving on.

Then on BR realised I should've treated like PSA Except question.

Taking the L on this one. My confidence go to me here.

Something I learned in university as an anthropology major:

Your thesis can be written as "In this essay, I argue that.."

Simple as that! You can add how you're going to support it like "I draw on support from personal experience and perspective X & Y". Thus, as these perspectives show, THESIS AGAIN".

I think the Intro can be scary, but you just need to make your point. Just keep it simple and straightforward. It can definitely be 1 sentence long.

If we use must be true test on C, we can eliminate it pretty quick.

Must it be true that "Knowledge of dromeosaur fossils and the earliest bird fossils is complete"?

No, we don't know that it must be true. It could be true that it is complete, but it could be the case that it isn't. To say something is complete is to be 100% certain and we don't have that certainty based on our stimulus/

In comparison, D passes the must be true test. Must it be true that "Known fossils indicate the relative dates of origin of birds and dromeosaurs"? Yes this must be true.

If we know that the earliest bird fossils that have been discovered predate the oldest known D fossils, then it also must be true that the known fossils (D ones) show the relative dates of origins of birds and D.

To check we could use negation test.

If it's true that Known fossils DO NOT indicate the relative dates of origin of birds and dromeosaurs", does it destroy the conclusion that the claim is false? Absolutely yes. If the negation of D is true, then the fossils have no bearing to support our conclusion. If the fossils can't indicate the date of origin then can we even use our premises to support what came before or after?

So, D is correct.

Unpopular Faculty -> Modify

Unpopular Students -> Adapt

/Unpopular Faculty -> Unpopular Student

E -

/Unpopular Faculty (Popular Faculty) -> Unpopular Student -> Adapt

I have a feeling that if this was presented as a "Weaken" Q type, then it would be more obvious that B introduces this new idea "evidence/counter principle" that makes the conclusion less likely to be true.

But, at the same time, there's this psychological thing about flaw questions that makes you really panicked and stressed out. I think that's what messes you up.

A was super tricky for me and I chose it in Actual time. But on BR, I realised exactly what Kevin said. If you have one example in the premise and the conclusion is about sometimes, that's entirely valid. That's what we do in MSS/MBT questions where you take one instance and infer that it could sometimes be the case.

So, the psychological part of the test really hits on these harder flaws!

@SaniqueRowe Can I make a follow up comment for the same issue on PT138.S1? The whole Section is missing passage explanations for the RC section.

Very weird question stem, didn't really understand what my task was, but I assumed that we wanted to find an alternative hypothesis for the phenomenon.

POE'd and landed on C but I def was running circles in my head eliminating based on whether the AC was connecting back to stimulus on showing an Alt Hyp.

Flaw for me was premise was about "Incidence of Cancer". Conclusion about "increased health risk".

A matches great. "Incidence of certain major illnesses" in premise and "increased health risk" in conclusion.

I'm planning on doing the writing portion like a week after the test! Need some time to prepare just for the exam, then I'll make time to prepare just for the writing and then get that out of the way.

Kevin is killing it with these videos!!

@wylangao You should review your Foundations on Conditional Reasoning and also the Core Curriculum on Sufficient Assumption (I believe in Strengthening Section). A sufficient condition is something that triggers your conditional chain. Something that guarantees your outcome. It's often indicated by: If, When, Whenever, Every, Everytime, Each, In Order To, People Who, Any, Anytime, etc.

Ex. If the sky is blue, then it will be sunny.

Here, "the sky is blue" is your sufficient condition. Why? Because having "the sky is blue" guarantees your outcome of "it will be sunny". If we don't have "the sky is blue", let's say "the sky is grey", does that get your outcome of "it will be sunny"?

No.

We are told that "If the sky is blue, then it will be sunny". Given "the sky is grey", we don't have anything that can get us to the conclusion nor can we do anything with it. If you remember our Oldest Mistake in the Book, we CANNOT go from "If the sky is NOT blue, then it will NOT be sunny". If you tried to say, hey, "the sky is grey" is just saying "the sky is NOT blue", so we can get to "it will be sunny", then you've fallen for a conditional logic trap. You need to review the Foundations again.

So, to conclude, a sufficient condition is something that triggers your conditional chain; something that guarantees your outcome. If you don't have your sufficient condition, then we can NEVER get to the necessary condition or your outcome.

A sufficient assumption is different. A sufficient assumption is an assumption (or gap) in the reasoning between the premise and conclusion of an argument. In a sufficient assumption question, our task is to fill in that assumption 100%, so that the conclusion is guaranteed 100%.

Ex. In order to make orange juice, one needs sugar. Therefore, orange juice is unhealthy.

What's the gap in the stimulus? Why aren't the premises proving the conclusion? Well, we have our conclusion: "orange juice is unhealthy" and our premises "In order to make orange juice, one needs sugar". What's the gap?

The gap is that [Sugar is unhealthy]. So, our sufficient assumption (the assumption that guarantees our conclusion 100% true) is that "Sugar is Unhealthy".

So, sufficient assumptions are the gap or assumption in an argument's reasoning. Finding the sufficient assumption means filling in the gap or assumption 100%, which means that we guarantee the conclusion 100%

Woah! Thanks 7sage!!

@wylangao I saw that you uploaded a screenshot from the WAJ for PT114.S4.Q16. I think you should also include "What made you pick your Actual Answer?", "What made you change your answer in BR?", "What makes your Actual Answer wrong and how could it be a better answer?", and "How can I do better next time?". It's important to self reflect on everything, so you learn from your mistakes.

7sage reasoning structures are good because that's how the tags are formed.

I don't know where you picked up on "the only is a SA and only is NA. few is less than some", but that's incorrect. "The Only" indicates a sufficient condition indicator. Ex. The only way to water your plants is with water: Water Plants -> Water. "Only" indicates a necessary condition. Ex. With water you can only water your plants: Water -> Water Plants. SA and NA refer to Sufficient Assumption and Necessary Assumption, so don't get those question types confused with the sufficient/necessary conditions?

Few is "Some are AND Most are not". Ex. Few people go to the store nowadays: Some people go to the store (people <S> go to store) AND Most people do not go to the store (People -M> /go to store).

I finally broke into 160s recently, so here’s some stuff I did to get there:

1. Get a good grip on the foundations, CC. You need to be able to parse grammar in stimulus, passage, AC. You need to be able to recognise reasoning structures and what you need to do in those: conditional reasoning, causal, phenomenon hypothesis, reasoning by analogy, example, etc. You need to be able to diagram conditionals either on paper or in your head and be able to translate everything correctly. That’s means not mixing sufficient necessary, knowing difference of The Only and Only, knowing what “few” means, and the strength of conditionals. You need to be able to translate the stimulus into something you can understand.

2. Knowing, understanding, and habitually applying your question strategies. If you’ve been drilling great! But have you been applying the same strategy to your questions (Meaning treating MSS question strategies different from Strengthen question strategies)? You will need to have developed a strategy for answering questions and need to drill using them. This part takes a lot of time. I had to start with untimed drills and practice using these steps then habitually train myself to use them even when stressed on time. You need to re-wire your brain to see how to approach a certain Qtype and then switch gears when you see another. You NEED to approach the questions strategically. The only way to do this is consistently drill questions using your steps.

   I noticed you wrote 4-5 stars are hard. Once you drill your strategies and you fully understand points 1 and 2, the questions won’t become easier but you’ll be able to navigate the AC better and get a gist of what the stimulus is trying to tell you.

3. Timing comes later. Right now your focus should be on points 1 and 2. That means getting yourself familiar and comfortable with everything. Timing isn’t in the equation. You need to get your tools under your belt. Same in RC. Need to get lowres techniques down (something I’m still working on untimed!) and practice going through questions in a faster form. Timing shouldn’t be considered. Once you master everything, then start the timing, gradually decreasing your time allocated. If you’re a bit in a timed frenzy, then start going through your techniques on some Qtypes, master them and do timed drills while you learn the rest!

4. Wrong Answer Journal & Blind review. If you haven’t done these yet, start now. Makes a big difference and you can see where you go wrong. A lot of your mistakes are patterns, and if you can spot what happened and why you made a certain decision, then you might be on a good path to fixing it. Recognize your mistake patterns and get yourself to fix them by WAJ. Blind review to reattempt mistakes on a fresh question and take time to apply strategies again. Really take time in BR to learn why AC is wrong, why you got it wrong, what stimulus is saying, etc.

Again, these are what worked for me. I’m still working through almost everything of what I commented here, but please reach out! I’m happy to explain questions you don’t understand!

It might be worth taking some time off and taking a break? I'm not the one to say but if you're coming off an intense semester, it might be worth taking some time off. Look after yourself, give yourself time to recover, spend time with friends/family, etc.

I had a similar thing where I graduated then immediately started studying for LSAT but I didn't make much progress in the first 4-5 months because I was feeling burntout. I took a month off to look after myself and recover from everything. Then I joined 7sage and started really test prepping. It's been great ever since.

There's so much you can do and sometimes you need to step back and take care of yourself first. Body and mind come first. What you're experiencing sounds like an initial burnout to me, but if you take the time to focus on recovery first, I'm sure the PT Brain Fog will go away.

It just sounds like you need some rest!

I spent like a minute so confused why none of the AC strengthen the AUTHOR's argument. Then I read the question stem and face palmed. Oh ofc it's D.

Good reminder to read the question stem carefully and make sure you know who/what you're supporting on top of what you're doing.

Generally questions appear easiest to hardest. The last 5-8Qs tend to be filled with 4-5 stars, which means starting from the back of the test means you're working on the hardest questions. Why do that when you can spend same amount of time working on easier questions and getting more points?

It's most wise to start from the beginning and go from there.

Roxanne thinks that there's no correlation between New and Antique ivory markets. Salvador thinks that there is a positive correlation between New and Antique ivory markets. So, B best highlights their Point at Issue.

Gap in the argument is that author's premises are about symphonies are divinely inspired. Conclusion is about symphonies are religious music. What's the gap?

Divinely Inspired -> Religious Music

This could be stated in a number of ways. Assumes without justiification, overlooks the possibility. In this case we get it through B.

The author confuses two different meanings of Religious Music from Divinely Inspired. In other words, author assumes that divinely inspired is same as religious music, which would talk to us about the gap. So, B is correct.

So E is technically correct as in that it's one of the flaws present. It's just that the question stem is phrased as "what does the author take for granted". So, E is wrong for that because the author overlooks the possibility of E and the question is asking for something that author takes for granted.

Honestly, I might've not gotten the question correct, but I'm still giving a pat on my back for spotting the flaw. Just need to learn that if it says "it reasons that" that means "author assumes that".