This is what I was thinking, too. The overall number didn't go up, but as urban sprawl has increased in the years since 1950, more cities are being hit with tornados, and the number of people reporting it has drastically increased. I guess, it's not strengthening the argument, though. Especially not as much as C. Oops just listened to his explanation, and yah I guess Im stretching it.

I was thinking E bc there is less material for the DF lemurs to eat in the winter they need to stay out longer. Just like we inferred that predators relied on their eyesight and could easily see through the canopy in DF winters, hence the lemurs stay in during the day and forage at night...I thought we were supposed to infer that the lemurs who relied on plants would have less of them in winter and need to spend longer foraging...I guess plants =/=leaves.

Where does it say BOOK? They are using quarto here as BOOK? Are we seriously supposed to know that QUARTO means BOOK?!!? I thought it was a section of a play. Why wouldnt the actor have the f*cking play?

For Question #6, how is it that cheaper/more accessible computer tech would lower the price of convention access? Where D, I thought, weakened one of the author's last points of them missing out on everyday interactions in their community. Well, if these people are so shy and reserved in general, they may never have those interactions in the first place, and the only place for them to participate with others may be a convention with similar people...

I misread question 7's "they" as speaking of the author, the author holds X beliefs, so they are calling the critics snobs, not the critics hold X beliefs, therefore, the author is calling them snobs... I thought the author thought it wasn't right to be criticizing the author of these novels, hence they felt the critics were snobs and I had no clue what inverted snobbery meant tbh...I HATE RC

My question/issue with #26 is, if the most strongly supported answer says the archeological evidence is ultimately impossible to confirm (E), then why would it be an appropriate source of data for reconstructing (D)? If you are admitting that, ultimately, it doesn't confirm anything, how is it appropriate to use it scientifically? Seems like you are just saying its a guess, perhaps an educated guess, but still a guess that can never be confirmed, hence not appropriate to base reconstruction on. I thought A initially bc the author is saying that with further study, we can potentially disprove his theory with more accurate data.

I first thought A on my timed section bc I thought the distinction he was missing was direct harm vs indirect harm as the person joyriding if causing harm would directly be plowing into another person, directly harming them, while the hacker damaging health files would be causing harm to another person, but in a more indirect manner (physically harming them just with extra steps, I thought at least). But yeah, the relying on actuality of a phenom when its just possible was caught in my BR. Worst problem set to date tbh.

I changed answer from A to E in BR because of a faulty understanding of the word presuppose. I thought this was like saying he was trying to prove a foregone conclusion one that he already knew the answer. The idea that multiple possibilities applied made sense, which is why I picked A first time, but the wording of the AC threw my off!

E tricked me just like he described in the video. At least this question forced me to look up what presuppose meant to grill that into my brain.

I wrote on my BR notes for B "What the F principle is being defended for B" as I worked my way up to my correct answer from the timed section of A, then realized that "Oh no, he did acknowledge her evidence, missed the part where he noted the exaggerated claims", had to go back to B to just pick it as the least bad answer bc it included the part about restricting the class of people.

This question is quite easy, but I misread the "decreased substantially at every one of our restaurants both last year and the year before". For some reason I didn't think it meant that it decreased this last year from the year before, just that it decreased overall from 3 years ago. So, I thought the way to reconcile the two people's statements and have them both be true, was that admitting numbers have gone down, but they went down more 2 years ago, and last year they were down but had risen from from 2 years ago, thus showing that more people bought more food last year. I thought this just meant they were less competitive overall as compared to 3 years ago, which makes no sense bc I was iffy about the wording of "competitive". Especially since it had not been mentioned whatsoever. I just didn't think we could assume new businesses were opening for some reason. I see my mistake now, I think.

I seemed to have gotten quite a few of the MBT and the SA question stems mixed up.

Same for my initial response. Then, I did the blind review and I assumed it was too big of a leap to make that assumption. So I went with E because it established that the rich folk were in the habit of having status symbols with the choice in flooring, and the marble served as another example that would support the conclusion. I guess that was also too big of an incorrect assumption to make. I understand why its B, just dont understand how we are supposed to see that in such a quick manner of time while the other trick answers are there to slow us down.

Okay I get why it's B now after listening to his explanation. But I do not get how I am supposed to do all that logic inside my head that took the tutor about 5 and a half minutes to explain, and I am supposed to do that within 1:18. Im really hoping that I will be able to see some kind of pattern for these types of tough LR questions that make the answer stand out quickly, bc right now it just seems like you need to have superpowers to grasp these and even then you still may not come up with the right answer in that short period. I was doing pretty well with the Strengthen questions up to this point as well. I just dont see how I can realistically answer a question like this in such a short time frame.

I wasn't thinking big picture in the argument. I was focused on the conclusion that the best managers should be assigned to these new products that, without them, would likely fail. It's why I chose E. I thought this strengthened the support that this was the correct conclusion bc if a product has strong early short-term prospects, it will be more likely to succeed in the long run, and the way to make sure of this early success is to move successful managers over to the new products.

I can see why D makes sense, and I guess I understand why E doesn't since it doesn't want us to make the assumption that these good managers will lead to E.

DON'T BE ME!!!! READ THE QUESTION RIGHT!!!!!

Same, I didn't get to this lesson, and was confused by the double negative.

I thought the - a seemingly false assumption was describing the entire first sentence, not just the part of the sentence that mentioned human beings are unselfish. The entire passage didnt make sense after that bc of this misinterpretation. I knew what she was saying that people are selfish and therefore the welfare state would not work, but it was just confusing that the she would be arguing against herself seemingly by stating that the whole first sentence was "seemingly false assumption" so I answered C. Its really easy if you understand that she is only referencing that human beings being unselfish is the false assumption, as the first sentence clearly becomes her conclusion.