Honestly my biggest advice, and more for your own peace of mind, contact admissions and ask them about this.

My guess is they will either:

1: tell you that’s it’s totally fine

2: give you some advice on resolving it

3: basically send an email with an addendum just explaining the mistake

Unless I’m missing something, this seems like an honest mistake and probably fine.

My logic for B was that they could have included other artists in that painting so what if it was one of them. I guess we do have to think about it as why would this early painter who is not famous be included which is pretty unreasonable.

This is tricky. B is saying

Thaw Following High Snow -> overflow

The stim was

Earth quake -> tiny tremors

I think the difficulty is I latched to the flaw of past predicting future, which is shared by other arguments and should have been a flag not to pick it.

What got me about this one, Is I had in my head that they were just talking about the peptides they were orignally studying. I didn't think to consider the peptides later on that the made/modified so of course they wouldn't exist in nature.

I got this wrong but I think something that AC doesn't address, and helps support its correct.:

as potential creators would be deterred by the unlikelihood of recouping the cost of their creations. If there is no effective legal protection against joke theft, then why do thousands of comedians keep cranking out new material night after night?

So the passage poses an issue, creators would be deterred from the unlikelihood on not recoup the costs creating their content, asks why comedians make material if there is no recoup, and then answers it in the next passage when addressing the social norms.

So structurally, the social norms are resolving the issue posed in the previous paragraph.

Something that has really helped with timing, aside from practice, is doing entire sections but adding extra time.

I would normally have a big gap in my br so I do a section with 10 extra minutes and then as time goes on try to find ways to just get my time down. So next section maybe go for 9, then 8.

When I started seeing a decrease in accuracy I stopped and considered why I was still rushing and what’s going wrong.

This really helped with LR as within a week I started finishing sections with the same or better as before.

Rc has some ways to go but it’s kinda the same process.

I think the big thing too is to take these as opportunities to practice in a less pressure setting doing the questions right, not rushing, and get used to situations when you are short in time and you might have to guess or pick up the pace just a bit.

Its great to see a solid BR! My advice for the LR section which helped me was start practicing sections with a bit extra time. I was guessing on the last 3-5 questions so I added 10 minutes to my section and slowly tried to figure out what I could do to reduce my time. Whether it was realizing, I was not immediately going with the prephrased answer I saw, maybe not taking my time to understand the stimuli or not dissecting the differences between the last two answers I was left with. The only catch is you start noticing your LR score isn't improving, to stop and think if your still rushing.

I think its a big confidence boost too cause when you first do it, you'll be surprised how much your score improves and how this really a mental game.

DON'T FORGET TO REVIEW WRONG ANSWERS THOUGH!

Also, use it as a time to practice using the strategies and methodical approach to questions during sections. That way you will apply that when the section starts and even practice remaining calm and cool if your running low on time.

This also helps with RC, but I myself have to get my time down a bit more so I would mainly use it for LR.

Sorry, last thing I promise!

You can add an extension to record your screen as you test and see what you’re doing in the question. I don’t do this all the time, but it made me notice that a lot of the times I picked the right answer immediately but didn’t feel confident and double checked the other answers and even entertained wrong answers.

Maybe something worth trying?

Right, so what I noticed with the 10 extra minutes is I could get down to about 4 wrong answers. For me this was close to my BR so that was kinda the trigger that I wasn’t sacrificing accuracy. Having a goal or standard and seeing if you can keep hitting it roughly is good. And obviously make sure you review your wrong answers.

So when I got down to 40 minutes but went up to 7 wrong answers that was kinda a mental note that, okay I’m moving a little too fast and need to try again at this section and most importantly understand why I was still rushing despite the extra time.

I think it’s a big mental game too because you get used to the pacing, you realize it’s more nerves and that you can actually start doing these questions with less time.

One last thing, I’m sorry this is so long, definitely use this too as an opportunity to practice being very systematic and deliberate with how you approach the questions and that your consistently doing that in a section. This is a skill that I found was going away as I was losing time, so not identifying the premise and conclusions and prephrasing and cost me accuracy. Now that you don’t have as much time pressure you can train that muscle a bit more in an entire section.

I started doing this strategy and it really helps. If not for score improvement, confidence.

I started out doing 45 minute timed sections, and then asked myself how I could get down 1 more minute without sacrificing accuracy.

After a few weeks, I could finish my LR sections with the same if not better scores.

I’m still working on RC also actually just posted about it too lol. What I’m gonna try is focus on trying not to go through every AC which I think is costing me time and also if I really feel confident answer pick it and run. I always have about 2 questions per section that take a bit longer so my next step is thinking how to do these more efficiently or have a mental clock telling me to guess and move on.

Most important thing, is no matter what it’s gonna be fine and not to catastrophize. Even in the worst case scenario, which probably won’t happen, you have options and the ability to handle it.

The application process is becoming holistic for a reason, because one exam is not what defines you.

you got this!

For D, in hindsight the killed sentence is also Babblers,

however, are extremely well camouflaged and could usually feed safely, unnoticed by predators. hese predators, indeed, generally become aware of the presence of babblers only because of their shrill barks

This kinda defeats the purpose of D because even if they have poor hearing, we know they are actually alerted to the presence from the barking and even with good eye site they go unnoticed.

I was between D and E. From my perspective, I had a few issues with this:

We would need to assume:

1. Reading and Exercising are comparable

2. Watching a twin is equivalent to watching oneself and not watching another person.

3. Potentially, are we assuming that this person can't distinguish themselves from the twin! I know that you're not supposed to bring outside info in... but I am an identical twin, and I can tell us apart in every single picture and video!

4. There is no sense of rivalry or other factors that would influence one in this instance to overestimate reading because your jealous of your twin.

5. We are supposed to believe that enough people over reported their time to an extent, that it would add

For E, I actually viewed this as the alternative explanation, it's showing that if you watch yourself doing something, you're more likely to do it. So, it's not motivation, it's more of mimicking or mirroring effect or maybe self-fulling prophecy.

I also struggle with them, I have found that like some people suggest there might a study, theory, or phenomenon that they take time to explain. For me I try to do my best to really make sure I understand that information even taking time to diagram it if possible or just put it into my own words.

Also, if there is some kind of causal mechanisms I like to note that like “higher cholesterol usually leads to head disease”.

These are two things I feel they like to test on, especially more difficult questions, and if you don’t really understand it, it can come back to bite you on the questions.

In hindsight, I got this wrong because I was too focused on predicting something about fruits and vegetables. Also, everything other than B is too strong. I think what I have problem with MSS questions though is that there is leeway for this type of information so I think I have to be better with that.

I was between D and E:

I think it's important to note it's what the author holds to be the most strongly supported view. This exemplifies that because they go through the trouble of talking about the saving these historic documents, they probably favor it more or least consider it to be very important.

And maybe we could even go as far as to say, "Why the author really believes that these archivists wouldn't have concerned themselves with what was essential vs what was dispensable until recently".

maybe not the most sure-fire way to do this problem but I think reframing that it's what the author considers MSS helps a bit.

I got this wrong but here is why I think C is correct.

Think about it this way, either we have a better ability to see these small tornadoes, or the number of small tornadoes increases so much it doubles the aggregate number of tornados reported.

And I think what I should have noticed and been more receptive to, this is really the only answer choice that addresses the number of tornados. All the other ones are more indirectly related to them, so in hindsight picking up on that would make me entertain this answer choice more.

Economist articles are really good, they are short, loaded with info, and unlike a lot of other sources they do tend to have a bit of an opinion/tone which I think is good practice for reading comp.

What I started doing is waking up up early, 6:00, going to the gym and then study from either 7:30 or 8 to 9, and then start work.

My days are pretty difficult to judge time wise because I work in consulting so this helped front load the studying I needed.

I started going to the gym to actually help with studying because it cleared my head to allow for better quality studying which is essential when trying to get a routine in place.

Play around with a routine and that should help.

I think another issue with E, even though I choose it, is that we know the skew is we know a lot about failed spies but little about successful spies.

We never technically establish if we have a lot of data about the intervention, just that we can discern the effects. But is it alot? Maybe it just minor matters, kinda of a similar point to the quantifier impossible, except here its a little weak.