Wow, I think this one is wicked hard because it is structured to make it seem like the premises are linked in some way. I thought that the second premise about the interaction between students and teachers was supposed to be building off of the premise about social processes. I assumed that the argument was elaborating to make it seem like the rigid and artificial relationship between students and teachers is why the environment is not a social process... The second premise feels like a red herring.

Thanks so much. This was really and truly what I needed to hear today. My test score was 5 points lower than the average of my last 5 practice tests, and right around my diagnostic test. It was super discouraging to see that score. I knew that I hadn't done well on the actual test day. Everyone told me, 'oh, you probably did better than you think you did', but I just had this gut feeling. I hadn't been able to focus or get a grip on the questions. The testing center was not what I had expected it to be; people were coming and going from the room the whole time, and the headphones were not sound-proof, amongst other factors--so I really struggled on the first section, which threw me off for the rest of the test. It's really helpful for me to hear you talk about how to address individual execution factors in targeted ways, and treating these skills the same as the content skills. The portion about the ego is always good to hear. Appreciate you!!

2 questions:

1- are there tutors that can help specifically with these execution skills?

2- is it realistic to expect to be able to achieve a 168+ by the November test date? I scored 155 on this test, but my average on my last 5 PTs has been 160, and my highest PT has been 165. My blind reviews have been consistently in the upper 160s-lower 170s. I studied for about 2.5 months before taking the August test, and my diagnostic score was around 155. I also plan to take the October test.

thank yOU!

totally agree with this. I read it as relating to her previous writing style as well...

@EvaCarrascoLopez.PhD that makes sense, I was really confused for a minute

@LowriThomas i agree, the word 'all' makes this answer iffy in my opinion

glad I'm not the only one confused by 3. 3 is NO GOOD! #confusing

the argument is saying that humans made up a larger group but spent less time grooming. it also says that bigger groups tend to spend more time grooming. it states the main purpose of grooming is social cohesion. the argument does not say that bigger groups spent more time doing socially cohesive activities. i thought the question was asking us to find the discrepancy between why less time grooming vs. bigger social group, not how else was this social group cohesive... i think this question is misleading.

@eeunbinc424 this is true, frustrating though

I take issue with this answer, because it is making the assumption that the only way a city budget can get enough funds, is through taxes, or at least, a major way.... and that without taxes, the budget will not be big enough to hire new employees.

I am confused by one thing, the conclusion of the argument says that the gene variant causes thrill seeking behavior. at no point does the argument explicitly equate thrill seeking and impulsive behavior, even though it alludes to the fact that they are the same thing. in not assuming anything to be true, I was drawn towards B, because I took the argument to be saying that because the variant is found in kids with impulsive behavior, and because impulsive behavior is similar to thrill seeking behavior, then that same gene variant causes the thrill seeking behavior. I guess I assumed that the argument had already said that the gene was responsible for the impulsive behavior - but I still think that the reasoning of the argument is flawed, because they never explicitly equate thrill seeking and impulsive behavior...

@MaxThompson okay @tutor, but if I understand Max’s question correctly- I’m also not sure how his being a tyrant was the ‘cause’ his psychological state. It seems more like in order for someone to be a tyrant it is necessary for him to be paranoid and suspicious- but not that being a tyrant causes him to be this way… rather being this way is a necessary precondition to being a tyrant and maintaining that political position of power.