@Hfa Yea im with you on that grammar is defiantly tricky and when that's paired with unfamiliar topics for me it becomes a challenge to even know what's going on. Im not a perfect test scorer but if you need to bounce any study ideas off someone feel free to reach out. best of luck with your studies

im also planning for the September test however may delay to October if my scores are not where they should be but. I think a big flaw of mine I had while I was going through the curriculum was not practicing the concepts I was learning. I recommend taking times LR sections while going thru LR and defiantly mix up days of RC into your schedule don't limit yourself from mastering one section of the test at a time because my the time you spend all your energy into brining up your RC scores (which is also my weakest area) your going to have forgotten or not be as effective with some of the questions and concepts we have been learning in the LR modules

@FultonHoover I think that is an irrelevant concept the facts in the argument I considered are below

to farm meat it cost a lot of grain

grain can feed more people than meat

grain production is slowing

---------------------

it will be morally wrong to eat meat

B directly weakens this, it doesn't matter if cattle or sheep are raised on gain, we are saying that there are ways to raise meat from grass and not grain, additionally the production of grass is not affecting grain in any way. Thus making it not "morally unacceptable" under the terms of the argument to eat meat

the only assumption we must make with B is quite reasonable being simply that cattle/sheep produce meat.

in the visual shouldn't we be scooping some As into the B bucket and also scooping some Bs into the A bucket if we want to be able to reverse the <-s-> claim. I fully understand that some is reversible but the visual says otherwise if you scoop only from A to B and then B to C