I watched the explanation videos! And then did fool proofing and repetition. The games are all basically the same version of older ones. I was only able to do 3 games at the most and when I started doing what I said above, I finish all games and usually get -3.
I would not do timed tests. It's not helpful until you have a solid grasp on the materials. Do untimed tests and take your time. Spend time making sure you understand the fundamentals! Do the drills too--you'll start to see the patterns.
Figure out what your trends are--what are the most common missed question types for you, and then drill those. There's no point in taking more PTs if you're not actively learning. PTs are a snapshot of where you are in your studying. You need to drill skills and strategies
Hey @--
So I think E is better than C because the issue with the study is that they went into the street and found 20 people that are willing to talk to them. When I read the stimulus, I found that their sample size was the issue with the study. These people that they found were willing to be interviewed. The flaw is that how can this study be valid if their sample size is all kinds of wrong? That's what E is saying. I think C could be a flaw but isn't the main/most relevant one.
Interested
I'm interested! Should I PM you?
Hey all,
I'm trying to get together a group for studying via zoom/FaceTime and/or group chat for quick feedback on studying and questions.
I was scoring low 160s but finally broke 166 and 171. Wanted to study with people that are motivated and want to get their score as high as possible.
Comment or shoot me a message and let's see if we can work something out!
@ I drilled my weakest points and did untimed sections afterwards to observe how I tackled questions. But mostly did heavy drilling
I think they're giving out that info mid August?
@ take a week or so off studying. Seriously. I was scoring consistently in the low 160s. I took a week and a half break and now am scoring high 160s/low 170s. Sometimes your brain needs time to fully absorb the material
@ if you ever have more questions or whatever, inbox is always open!
I think the most important thing is to know what the conclusion is, how the argument tries to support it, and try to identify the flaw/gap in thinking. Once I did that, repeating out that information to myself out loud before going into the questions, it helped.
I did tons of drills of question types I had issues with until it became clear.
Happened to me too--soooo frustrating! I looked online and people said that it's most likely due to nerves but I felt fine? So idk
@ sorry I'm just now replying--I didn't get a notification!
Attacking the support is very abstract tbh, sometimes I don't even understand what that means too. The way I look it is as such:
For strengthening, look for something that makes the premises more credible to support the conclusion. This varies based upon the flaw type. For example, if it's an argument by analogy, a strengthening choice would show that that the analogy is a good one. If it's an argument by false dichotomy, we want an AC that shows that the false dichotomy is actually fine.
For weakening, you want to expose the flaw and essentially do the opposite of strengthen. Just keep in mind that some ACs for strengthen and weakening questions don't have to strengthen or weaken the argument by a lot.
When evaluating the answer choices, I basically try to prephase based on what I think the flaw is. If I don't know that, I insert the answer choice into the stimulus and ask if it strengthens or weakens the argument.
I hope that clarifies something!
@ when I read answer choice A, my first thought was "so what?" So what if they move to family newspapers?
I believe you may have misidentified the conclusion. The conclusion isn't that some advertisers are motivated by moral as well as financial considerations. The conclusion is "This must have been because they morally disapproved of publishing salacious material." Try the question again with this in mind.
If that is the conclusion, and the premises says that some companies are motivated by moral and financial considerations, we need to strengthen the conclusion that the advertisers actions **must** be because of moral disapproval. Answer C does exactly this! If they lost money leaving that magazine, then it is more likely that they really did not morally approve of the magazine's new direction.
Let me know if this helps!