@VEGANJacques I haven't registered for it again (I have taken it twice haha). I may just keep trucking along with my current approach and register later this year for a Nov26 or Jan/Feb27 sit.

@monmon This one broke me haha. thanks for taking the time to respond.

This is a funny moment for me...

I initially was scanning answers a referring back to the text for about 40 seconds. Between C - E I knew they were out immediately because of the authors closing.

I fell into the trap of A because of this realization

(Call it a "breakthrough"):

Answer Choice A essentially belonged to me. I was somewhat siding with the author, but the author clearly stated in question 4 passage that the chronology was plausible, but the last paragraph points to a flaw that could unfold the entire theory with better data.

The stimulus did exactly what it wanted to do by pulling my opinion from me and placing it on the authors side.

I BRd and got it right within 10 seconds because of these two statements:

"Having established this chronology, Lowe sets forth a plausible explanation" (GENERALLY ACCEPTED)

"our understanding of the collapse might be radically altered by better data..." (BUT QUESTIONABLE)

@VEGANJacques I stopped drilling the same question type continuously. I went back to the Core Curriculum for each of the weak areas I noticed and question tags. I used mixed drill tactics (to include adaptive drilling).

This made my mistakes more obvious from the start. The timeline from reading the stimulus to finding the answer tightened. The questions I am less sure about end up being a 50/50 split on harder LR and RC tagged questions.

Also, I do not give a shit about time haha. The clock might as well be in a completely different ballpark because I am at a bowling alley. Knocking down ACs that stand out immediately as incorrect. Zero pressure mindset. I love it.

how does "slowed down tempos" translate to "rapid tempos"?

When people explain an answer to a question using analogy, I just don't digest what is being said. Analogizing in this case is not helpful.

Break it down using the actual context of the stimulus.

Can someone please elaborate on the negation of AC C?

Some or all - Does that just negate to No?

These NA questions are becoming more and more clear to me each time I tackle them. But my errors are deeply buried beneath improper negation.

Also, isnt the negation of C AC B?

I came about this answer differently.

Medieval Arab philosophers were very interested in Aristotle's Poetics, but their demand for Homeric epics was not until later. Hence, having a number of these texts prior to translation was not necessarily in demand until modern times.

So, "Arab curator of the library" was like: We have all these texts of Homer, but no one cares about the Iliad and the Odyssey enough outside our core group to actually go through the work of translating these things, so lets just have these hang on a shelf while we translate Comedy or Satyr or something...

Maybe I am crazy, but this just seems cleaner.

OH-IO!!!!

Would you say that trap answers in strengthening questions are trying to fake support the premises the same way that trap answers for weakening questions attempt to fake attack the premises?

@smithy I had this exact thought which slowed me down at first. But then I thought, why would an actor who has played a role not be able to write the entire play with accuracy? Because they lost the script and forgot everything except their parts.

I would really like each answer to be able to point to areas within the stimulus as they apply (right or wrong).

Some of the analyses in the ACs say "this is incorrect because it points to a premises not the conclusion"..

Okay...point to the premises then where this incorrect AC is pointing.

Just a suggestion.

This question had a layer of muck all over it that disguised the benefit of woody vegetation from what I would presume to be the safest option...a wooden box. Therein lies the problem. I assumed a wooden box was more safe than woody vegetation.

The stimulus actually does not explicitly state that one is more safe than the other.

Weird question.

I just viewed this as "Employees at Flegco Corp who wear back belts are lifting heavy stuff" and "Employees who dont wear back belts are office workers."

The stimulus points to a very clear distinction between the two groups. ALL employees whose job involves lifting heavy objects wear back belts. So why does Phyllis not wear a back belt? Because she types at a computer.

This is a stretch haha. This is the strangest RRE question I've seen on here.

This is so cool. I was just coming here to check with the support team if this was a scam haha. Cheers!

I saw a tutor answer stating that the conclusion is something along the lines of "loss of birds due to snakes..."

But the support is a referent to the actual conclusion stating that the consequence was because of an introduction of the brown tree snake. So is the supportive referent "This is a consequence" pointing forwarding in the stimulus?

Typically referents point backward. So I see why this is a four star question.

I unfortunately fell for the curve breaker C. Although all ACs except for C and A were marked off...so I died on the 50/50 split once again.

The answer is obvious when you ignore all the extra fill at the beginning. However, I took over 1m 35s to answer this.

I got it correct. But, something made D feel like an assumption and less like support. Can anyone provide feedback on why I am thinking this?

For a one star question I feel shocked by this questions ability to draw this much time from me. haha

I got this correct. Please tell me if my thinking is correct on this. Any perspective is helpful.

The study says those who recently recovered from colds took cold medicine and reported more severe symptoms during the course.

Those that didn't did not have severe symptoms.

How I arrived at E.

Perhaps those who did take cold medicine in the study were further along in their illness or more compromised, therefore in desperation they decided to go on a round of cold medicine.

So, the cold may just be more progressive leading to taking cold medicine and not the other way around.

I got this right. But, I wracked my brain on this one for being a two star question. It makes sense to look for a motivation for the low-income entrepreneurs. However, I found myself looking for a reason to reconcile both. Can someone please explain maybe why I went that route?

Again, I did get it correct, but it took me over 2 minutes to choose the correct answer.

How does strengthening the argument involve looking for an alternate explanation? This is honestly the first time I have seen this in 1500 questions.

I genuinely become more cerebral with 5 star questions and do not diagram. Primarily because I have always been terrible at it.

That aside...

The condition of a car being used and is between a price range and is a used car less than ten years old is saying this:

If A (being a car) has a characteristic (costing x-x), then it also a subset of A (used car less than 10yr).

The condition of apartments have exactly two bedrooms being on the fourth floor is the same thing:

If A (being an apartment) has a characteristic (exactly 2 bedrooms), then it is also a subset of A (being on the fourth floor).

Maybe I am crazy. But that is how this came to be for me. Any feedback would be helpful.

I think a useful tool for this platform could be actually highlighting the gaps that are more implicit. Similar to the way the support and conclusion are highlighted in analysis. Small change could help dots connect where simple mistakes like even finding the gap in NA questions can occur. Cheers