Because of the way the argument is structured:

The first sentence lays out how people will behave under certain conditions.

The second sentence seems to lay out a particular instance where these conditions are meant to apply.

The argument relies on the first sentence in order to draw its conclusion, and doesn't use the second as a major premise or a sub conclusion in order to proceed.

To me it's structured like this:

If A, then B

Here's A.

Thus B

First Sentence: General Principle/Fact used to demonstrate how/why the conclusion of the argument will follow, given the scenario presented in the following sentences.

Second Sentence: Presents the scenario that the above principle is meant to be applied to.

Third Sentence: Conclusion, supported by the logic of the principle established in the first sentence; this is how it is a premise in relation to the argument.

This is the way I dissected it when I read the question.

I am too, if there's still room haha

These have tended to be a stronger question type for me; and I tend to do better on them than on strengthening, even though the two are obviously related. Identifying the assumption supporting the conclusion has been what's worked best for me. If the question is simple enough and I correctly identify the assumption, generally one of the ACs clearly attacks it, and the process is pretty straightforward. On the more difficult questions when I can't readily identify the assumption being made, I generally look at how each AC affects the argument and its conclusion, and can eliminate 4 or just find the correct one that way. I think with regards as to which method to use (7sage vs Powerscore), focusing on the assumption (provided you can identify it correctly) is the more effective method, as that is what you need to attack in order to weaken the conclusion in the first place. Obviously don't ignore the conclusion of the argument though, or you'll have nothing to weaken lol. Not sure if this helps at all, but that's how I've gone about doing weakening questions so far. Good Luck!

Me too!!

I had the same issue; super clear once I re read the question stem lol.

C was a bit of a trap for me because I thought that since all types of tea are subject to high import tariffs, sometimes (or often potentially) it could be the case that you have a low quality foreign tea increasing in price due to the tariff so that its price competes with a native high quality tea. I suppose it's written in a way that suggests all the tea in this hypothetical world is imported?

B is clearly the more solid AC, not needing any assumptions for it to be correct. But still, I'm curious if anyone else was thinking this way when they read C.

#help

I may be wrong, but I don't think the author suggests that Vierne's music is religious because it's played in a cathedral at all. I think it's purely about its being "divinely inspired," vs simply used in religious practice typically, as Handel's music is.

I think you're basically meant to make the distinction between religious in 2 senses:

the first being that the music they refer to is generally used during religious ceremony/church etc, so it's religious in that regard.

the second, the way the author uses it, is more implying that Vierne's work is religious because it is "divinely inspired" (aka inspired by God) in and of itself, regardless of whether it's used during typical religious ceremony/church/etc or not.

This is the same reason I chose B; didn't seem clear to me that this was an exclusive or. So B ended up being the least bad choice in that case.

For me, I generally tend to rely mostly on intuition rather than the lawgic language. But, in reading M's passage, it seems his point is to identify what makes someone a great writer. So when he says, "no matter how distinctive her style may be, her subject matter is simply not varied enough." AKA, in order to be a great writer (according to M), you must have varied subject matter; varied subject matter is necessary to be considered a great writer, or G ---> V

I'd like to be there as well, if I can. Thanks!

I know it can be frustrating to feel like you're not making progress in something despite your best effort.

First, take a step back; you've said RC is the (only) section preventing you from reaching your target score. It should be a load off your shoulders that you're happy with your results in LG and LR.

You've also JUST taken an RC section you did particularly poorly on. So you're probably not in the right head space to be evaluating your improvement in the section as a whole, even if it's true that it's not where you'd like it to be.

Lastly, I'm not sure if I can give you much advice you haven't tried already in terms of practical methods for improving, but I can tell you not to give up. Don't be discouraged by your wrong answers; take them as an opportunity to learn and see where you went wrong (that's the purpose of the blind review and evaluation). Everyone struggles with something. Stay positive and confident, and try to not to fall into despair, because you'll only perform worse.

Hang in there! :)