Recently came to the same realization myself. Seems like with PF, we're more so looking for a similarly flawed concept rather than looking for a similar argument structure

I personally eliminated it because the conclusion in the stimulus just said that the question is difficult, not that it is, for example, more difficult than Curtis' question. Answer E makes a comparative claim as its conclusion and I didn't find that in the stim

I initially answered this incorrectly but I think "A" is correct because if we negate it, then it says "There IS an indispensable aspect of residency training that requires physicians to work exceptionally long hours." By concluding that there SHOULD be similar restrictions applied to physicians, the author is implying that they don't already exist. This is how I interpreted it at least.

I think it's less a matter of weakening C and more a matter of showing that C is merely consistent with the stimulus and doesn't change anything. I'm thinking of it through the perspective of "okay great, the animals are not referring to abstract ideas or concrete objects when they gesture, but what does not referring to these concepts tell me about animals not possessing language?" We can easily assume that the Zoologist is telling us this to mean that they don't possess language, but that is exactly the assumption that we are trying to articulate! Answer Choice D connects this premise to the conclusion to confirm that this is in fact the assumption that the Zoologist was making. Hope this helps

I was having a tough time coming to terms with AC "D." Once I read the word "origin," it made all the difference. Initially, I did not select D because it was already stated in the stimulus that fossils had been discovered for both species indicating that one species has earlier known remains than the other. However, just because the known bones of birds are from an earlier time, does not necessarily tell us that the species ORIGINATED earlier in time. "D" tells us that this is in fact the case that earlier discovered fossil remains indicate earlier origin. Such a subtle assumption that it almost makes you want to snap your laptop in half, at least for me.

Interested as well!

I am in almost exactly the same situation. I began studying in January on and off but really began locking in during April and May so that I could take the June exam before Logic Games went away. I was great at LG but ended up changing my strategy during the test which cost me big time. Ironically, I finished the first two games the fastest I've ever completed them, then spent way too much time messing around on the third. This costed me picking up all of the points on the fourth game. My score ended up being about 6 points short of what I wanted which is almost certainly because of the 6 questions that I did not have time to complete.

This experience at a testing center and seeing what the ACTUAL exam environment looks like makes me feel a lot more confident for the upcoming August exam that I am scheduled to take. I signed up for the September one as well as an "insurance" if I was not feeling ready by the time August came around. I think I am going to end up cancelling August because I am really hitting my stride right now and think that by the time September comes, I will be at my peak.

My advice, I feel a lot more confident after seeing what the testing environment looks like and exactly what to expect. Nothing perfectly simulates the real thing besides the real thing itself I would say. As far as cancelling a score versus not, I personally feel comfortable being able to admit that I had a bad test day in my applications, and explaining to any admissions officer that it only made me work harder in the meantime and that my better score that I hope to get on my next exam will be a testimony to my resilience and discipline as a student.

I can't think of an analogy-based question that did not at least in some small way refer back to the analogy in the correct answer choice.

For this question, I think it's important to note that the only premise is the analogy about birds. The information up until the conclusion is considered context which means we are just being introduced to the world in which the question exists. Once we establish this world, we evaluate the premise and figure out what is absolutely necessary to know in order to bridge it to the conclusion. (for NA questions)

I've been practicing distinguishing the context from the conclusion by highlighting the context in pink, premise in orange, and the conclusion in yellow. Makes it much simpler to distinguish exactly what we should be looking for. Hope this helps!

I don't believe "/NSp" serves any function besides saving space when compared to writing out the conditional. I wrote out the conditional as we do in most other SA questions and it helped me get the correct answer so I don't think you need to.

Random thought: is there a quizlet or an embedded document somewhere in the course that sorts the general question stems for each question type? Feel like it would be super helpful to have flashcards and be able to recognize the question stems much quicker in order to save time/prevent simple mistakes.

At the test center that I went to, they provided 6 sheets of blank paper.