OK I think this finally clicked after 25 mins, or more, of studying this problem.

The first part: The reason why people with a high intake of foods rich in beta-carotene were much less likely to die from cancer in the first place is because NOT AS MANY OF THEM PARTICIPATED IN THE STUDY, as E states.

The second part: Now, the reason why this compound had no effect on the participants in the 12 year study is because this compound is useless because NOT SMOKING, our reasonable assumption, IS THE KEY to not dying from cancer.

It came down to answer choices D and E for me. I picked D because I did not understand E at all. Now I see that D does absolutely nothing for the argument and it reinforces the idea that the supplements are useless.

Hope this helps. Happy studying! :)

WHOOP I got it right

Can someone explain question 26 to me? He spoke a mile a minute and it is not clicking.

Can someone from 7Sage's team please break this down for me? The bucket example is making it more confusing, so that would ideally have to not be mentioned while explaining. Is the main point that it's over generalizing a larger group of people to be members of a smaller group of people?

I hated all of these answers.

Doesn't A also go against the facts provided in the stimulus?

Also D is completely inaccurate according to the information provided in the stimulus.

I am very confused on what exactly our job is with MBT questions. I know with PAI it's to identify where the gap is, MSS it's to find what would be the conclusion in one of the answer choices, MC it's to find the conclusion that's stated in the stimulus, but what do we do for MBT?

I love the way Kevin explains things. So much better than J.Y. !

Slay queen

Damn that was hard! I can't believe I got that one right and the fish one wrong LOL

It took me an hour to review the G3 indicators, try to understand what this guy is saying, only to realize that I should have waited for the cats and dogs analogy, which simplified everything for me. SMH.

His explanations make it more confusing. Can someone explain how to tackle formal argument questions and not sound like a robot.

This was such a weirdly worded question

I've been bombing the last couple of these questions and I think it's because I am not organizing my information accurately. Do you have any tips for sharpening my conditional logic skills OTHER THAN the lessons on conditional logic, since they were pretty unorganized and confusing in my opinion.

Question 14 was fucking crazy

Initially, I left off where J. Y. did (i.e., leaving B, D, and E alive) but I took a minute to consider the wording of D and E (i.e., "MORE" skeptical) which essentially implied that Author A was skeptical and critical, which is inaccurate, so I got B :D

I am liking the split approach

Ughhhhh I had it right and then I picked A after getting latched onto the frivolous information.

What a shit show of a passage

This was HARD. I got A.

Everyone is calling Theodora bizarre, but I liked her argument LOL

9/12 finally some progress

Thanks for your explanation, Kevin. I really understand this question now.

How the hell did you get most solved from the conclusion? Sorcery. Did you just take the contrapositive of "few"?