@ZoomorphicKnowledgeableBeginning Literally same ... here I was thinking body heat counted as the gaseous substance...

Hi, I've been stuck in a seeming rut. I can barely make it out of the 150s. I just scored a 160 (my highest) after taking a 2 week break after taking the August exam. I plan to retake the Nov exam, but I don't know how to make active progress. Its really frustrating because when I blind reviewed the 160, I got a 171, but that doesn't mean anything if I can't really apply it. I consistently score higher (like 5-10 points) when I blind review.

However, when I took another PT yesterday, my score went down back into the 150s.

Any tips on bridging the gap between my actual and blind review? Tips for improving accuracy?

Thanks!

Ok, hear me out. I was stuck in a very sick way btwn A and C.

Like I completely understood why A was the answer, and I came back to it and chose C because I was flipping btwn them and time ran out.

*My only beige(ish) flag for A was the fact that the stim didn't talk about types of damage, but I wasn't really too pressed about that ...

The reason I thought the sample could be unrepresentative is because the conclusion concluded that they're was NO causal connection between damage to HC#6 and AS. But for some reason, my brain went, well did you check on the people who had both? Bc they cited people with either or but not both. So I was like, what if the people who had both could have a causal relationship. So, the language of "no causal connection" felt like it was too strong when there could've been a possibility if they examined a sample with ppl damage to HC#6 and AS. Writing this out, this seems like a stretch, but in the moment I was so torn

... does this make sense or did I just violently deep this question for no rzn lols?

I fear I messed up because thought body heat could be considered a "gaseous substance..." I fear this was just a fumble on my end lols...