- Joined
- Nov 2025
- Subscription
- Core
Admissions profile
Applications
Discussions
E jumped at me instantly during BR. But during actual attempt I read the stimulus, knew it was a time sink, picked an AC and moved on. No regrets!🥲
I didn't like AC B because 1) "significant gain" while the passage says "a gain" and 2) "Despite initial judicial resistance to women's contractual rights" this is not supported at all.
I am taking October exam as well. I plan on taking the argumentative writing after the exam.
This is similar to another NA question regarding lower back pain (stretching and yoga). Pattern is:
A+B = A+C.
Conclusion, B is powerful.
NA is that C is powerful.
Because if not, then B cannot be powerful. Since A is constant, B and C must be equal in order to yield the same results.
I was down to AC A and E. Chose E. But upon a closer look AC E attacks or rather contradicts the conclusion, "capable of recognizing threatening people" "cannot recognize individual human faces."
Whereas, AC A when negated wrecks a part of the conclusion, "can even pass their concerns on to other crows."
@kassie.sheila I feel you! I cannot spend anymore so I started using google Gemini. It has been helping, not as much as 7sage AI but it's still something and is free.
I eliminated AC A because it is only about "Those involved in court trials that take advantage of computer-generated displays..." But I guess this is the best out of the options available.
@EmilyB450 🥲 It's all good. For as long as we don't repeat these mistakes on the test.
I was down to AC A and C. The first sentence definitely threw me off with "chess-playing programS" so I picked AC A knowing the comparison was different from the stimulus. It's an MSS question, so the assumption for AC A was quite unreasonable. AC C is clearly the winner. I selected it and then talked myself out of it solely based on the first sentence. FML.
@DeirdreWillgohs This is very helpful. I did not pick AC A, although my instinct was telling me to pick it, because I wasn't mapping it correctly. Now I know. So, thank you!
I am struggling with this because it seems the approach keeps changing. I chose AC B to eliminate the possibility that start time could have affected productivity, therefore strengthening that it in fact was nutrition. I did not pick AC A because the stimulus states that "workers in Plant B did not."
I thought restating premise did not help the arguments in strengthen/weaken. What am I missing? I really need a better explanation/understanding of this.
I took the bait and confused "emissions" and "speed." This one is like handing away a point.
I thought C was the trap because of how easy it was. I guess that was the trap and I fell for it.
@Wasi Thanks for sharing! I'm working on slowing down for RC. Low res and other strategies that I have tried haven't worked for me. Slowing down has helped, I've just got to train my brain to slow down without panicking lol. I'm better on LR, just got to stop second guessing myself.
Keep up the good work. Good luck!
AC A is definitely not easy one to pick. The only way is POE. That "qualified" made me cross is real quick.
It seems like AC A attacks a premise (I thought so as well and that's why I chose AC B). That would have been the case if the last sentence said "anyone who opposes higher taxes will make a better leader than someone who supports them." But the statement has "Many would agree" which makes it an opinion and not a fact. So, AC A does not attack any premise.
I mainly didn't pick E because "Reading to children at an early age" vs. "children who have not been read to". Two different sets. Whereas, the stimulus talks about students.
I did not pick A because the passage states "shift the risk of not recovering those costs, and of not obtaining a damages award that will pay their lawyer's fees, from the client to the lawyer." How is that "transferring the risk of pursuing a legal action from the client to the lawyer."?
Not me reading the wrong sentences🤦🏽♀️