Anchor yourself to the stimulus. Don't use your knowledge but use the claims to help support your thought process behind the correct answer choice. If you have to fill in too many holes chances are the answer is not valid.

5/5 last two were a little difficult in determining what the main conclusion was but once I confirmed them was able to pick an answer. I would emphasize not worrying about time now and focusing on really understanding the format of how these stimulus are laid out. Once you get that down the timing should start to come down.

How would be prove this causal relationship?

If there is a new term in the argument like in SA can we assume that the answer would have that new term in it?

It clicked for me mid way that many = some and a light lit up 2/3 on the first go around but 3/3 on the blind review

So for the ones that can't draw a valid conclusion this is due to the second statement not being important or connected to the first one. Its cool that vampires like blood too but you can't group surgeons with vampires just because they share something similar. Thats like saying all humans eat meat. Some bears eat meat. Some humans are bears. We share a common interest but can't truly connect it.

Can someone simplify why this is necessary. I feel as though the explanation isn't simplifying this enough.

5/5 "it is not the case that" is the goat of phrases

Can we say that due to the contrapositive not being about the subject and predicate that this is incorrect as well?

I applied my logic backwards and picked the answer choice that presented the most evidence that she should actually grab the piece

I got this right but was unable to determine why the other answer choices are wrong

For the first question how is the conditional chain supposed to look?

Grammar made me get this wrong!!!

4/5 The last one was interesting with how the wording through off the order

The thing that made this click was breaking this down to form and indicators. You can put anything in the sentence but if I have my indicator and can decipher whats being conditioned for the other, it'll work 99% of the time.

Can someone simplify B and how it weakens the analogy

My problem is if I took all day to build out the chain then I could get the question right but we won't have that time on the test. Has anyone noticed a increase of recognizing chains without having to write it out after building out the chains?

I am really struggling with this section

My brain works backwards for these questions for some reason. Can someone simplify the relationship between the conclusion and the answer choices for me?

Took me a while for number 1 but the question stem is super huge in understanding why d is correct. The goal for the question is truly to figure out how we can take these two things that seem to be opposing one another and come up with a valid resolution.

This one felt too good to be true in terms of the explanation compared to the others. I got it right so won't say much.

I got the answer correct but for some reason I always go to the other answers and try to find reason for them being wrong and increase my time

I got it right on the Blind review but this question hurt my brain

5/5 light weight baby!!!

What role does the that in the beginning of the sentence play other than making the sentence harder to read?