JY mentioned that a good way to approach RRE Questions would be to view them as weakening questions by negating the last premise / including a new conclusion and then finding the AC that most weakens the new argument.
While this works for regular RRE questions, i'm struggling to apply the method to EXCEPT questions and questions in which there isn't a paradox.
Any advice would be extremely appreciated as this is the question type I struggle with the most.
would love some help on this! I've realized I am able to get 100% accuracy when I do LG sections untimed but when I do timed I usually miss about 5-7 (more often than not on the last game) and this especially happens when there is a misc game thrown into the loop.
I foolproof everyday but i was wondering if anyone has gone through something similar and how they improved it.
@ said:
You're welcome!
Best of luck in your studies, you got this!
Can I actually ask you just one more quick question, I'm currently PTing because I plan on taking the exam in the summer and I was wondering if it would be good to foolproof maybe four from each LG type you have listed everyday? Or should I just dedicate a full week to foolproofing all of the CC?
I've noticed the importance that is placed on foolproofing on 7sage but one thing that i keep getting stuck on is the amount of games that the core curriculum gives and how long it would take to properly foolproof them.
What is the best way to efficiently foolproof without having to forfeit the time necessary for the other two sections? Should I just foolproof the games from my practice tests? Pick them out randomly from cc?
any advice would be appreciated!
Would love some advice on this, LG is a section I'm great at when I drill untimed but test anxiety always gets me when I actually take the timed tests.
My current method is to fullproof the games from practice tests I take (after reviewing them). I've heard it's best to foolproof all the games in the CC but I'm worried about timing and how long that will take as with my current method i'm only able to foolproof a few games a day.
@ said:
In an in/out game you could have both out, but not both in. But since this is two different committees, and not simply a question of being on the committee or off the committee, they need to be in separate groups.
That makes sense thank you! I incorrectly thought I would be able to turn this into an in/out game since it was two groups. Is there a time when this is allowed?
Struggling to understand the "not both" rule for a logic game. We have two committees and know that P --> /Q and Q--> /P (the not both rule). Now according to the explanation, P and Q must be separated amongst the two committees. While this obviously follows the not both rule, my question is, if we fail the sufficient condition (/P or /Q), can't we have them both together in the same committee since the conditional has fallen apart?
I know this is simple but for some reason i'm stumped! any advice would be appreciated :)
the way i understood this (no hard math like other explanations), hope it helps!
first off, always remember that percentage increase decrease does not necessarily impact total amount of money spent/present. JY's mapping out shows that there are three different directions that the total amount spent on the disease can go: either total spent increases, stays constant, or decreases.
Now, the stimulus tells us that in every single possible option, there IS a decrease in percent spent on standard treatments. The conclusion tells us that LESS money is spent on standard treatments. How can this conclusion be possible? Only if the amount of total money stays constant or decreases.
D is wrong because all it tells us is Total$ ‑m→ /Standard treatment (most of the total money was spent on nonstandard treatments). Why is this wrong? Because in every single condition of the total either getting larger, staying constant, or getting smaller, we already know this to be true because of the stimulus (just look at the mapped out version-- in every single circle, more is spent on nonstandard). So basically this does nothing but reaffirm a premise.
C indicates the opposite, more spent and not less
B we don't know this and there is frankly no way to know this
A "varieties" not discussed, quick cross out