@btruswel634 said:

Literally me, even though they are typically the harder passages. I feel like it's honestly because I start to get into a little bit more of a groove and for some reason stop second guessing myself, but I don't know how to fix this for test day :(

It's already accounted for. The stimulus says, "ALL unsalable garments are recycled as scrap". By very definition, having a small blemish is still a defect, and all defected items are recycled, so how can a blemish be sold at a discounted price instead of recycled, when the stimulus directly says all unsalable garments MUST be recycled. Idk if this explanation makes sense, but that's how I ruled it out almost immediately.

Did anyone else not map this? I feel like it makes more sense just to read it straight through and understand that the stimulus is implying it must be one or the other, but not both, when we're given no facts to believe this. Aka, false dichotomy.

I genuinely had never been more ready to give up after reading the first paragraph of a passage of my life, I almost cried.

E got me so good because I immediately read LIKE social lives, which would separate jobs having better performances and social lives as having worse, and then didn't even realize until blind review that it just combined REAL jobs and social lives into one category. But I totally liked E better because it clarified more studying = better academic performance which A didn't do. Now I feel totally stupid because I just completely ignored real full-time jobs and only saw social lives lmao... massive face palm, but good to learn from! Sorry for the rant, I just find it funny that I can get level 3,4, and 5 right no problem, and then overthink and make stupid mistakes on level 1s and 2s, please tell me I'm not the only one haha.

Same, lmao, I only got -1 and it was genuinely a mistake on my part because I felt defeated after reading that

I'm going to be so honest; I had no idea what a confectioner was. Lmaoooo

I feel like this explanation is misguiding people to assume that you can never contrapose PSA(r or a) question types, or at least that's what it sounds like. B is just wrong because it is still using the CAN make a practical joke as the necessary condition and the not contempt and not harm as sufficient conditions, if they were reversed and it was both, it would satisfy the contrapositive of changing or to "and". Maybe I'm overthinking it but it felt like JY was saying you can never contrapose a rule, haha.

It would actually be, good journalism --> satisfies OR accurate, because the initial statement is and, and when you contrapose and it turns into or, so that's another issue. You need to satisfy both, not one or the other.

I made this question so much harder than it needed to be (still got it right), but contraposed every clause individually, then chained, then undid the contrapositive. For some reason my brain couldn't see the direct link at first facepalm

#help

Should we be writing the low res summaries down on our scratch paper, or should we be memorizing them?

I have seen it come up plenty of times when drilling. There will be times you need to make inferences solely based on formal logic (which are these quantifiers). It will give you like 3 or 4 statements, especially on MBT questions, and you'll have to link all of them together, and sometimes you can only do this by using their negation, and if you miss that link, you're going to end up just guessing and getting it wrong. I feel like a lot of people forget about formal logic, because conditionals come up much more with sufficient and necessary question types, but there is a good amount of formal logic and connecting chain inferences in MBT and MSS (which are usually fact sets, which enables these inferences to come up). Sorry if I made this more confusing, but I hope it helps somewhat!

I should be more straightforward, I do understand how A is correct. Even while reading the stimulus I was like so what she said that to the public? Maybe she cares more about how the public views her so she lied, maybe she didn't testify to her belief in the courtroom, but once again were assuming she was a witness. Idk, I guess since were all taking the test this should be an "obvious assumption", but I'm not sure that it is.

See, that's exactly what I was thinking and why I didn't pick A and chose E instead; because we've always been told to not assume. Like where in the stimulus does it say witness, it doesn't. Yes, we can reasonably assume if you know how courts work that a testimony comes from either an expert witness or some other kind, but what if you genuinely had no background info on that?