Though it's challenging to find a meaningful conversation based on your abusive tone, I do have a few points in response:

1. Looking back at this question, I'm sympathetic to your point regarding "less than high quality" psychotherapy and "high quality" psychotherapy. Treating the former as a different term may not be correct, but you may agree that there is a gap between "incompatible" and "less than high quality." Incompatible usually means "unable to exist together," so a small assumption exists, specifically that psychotherapy is even possible in talk shows for it to be of less than high quality.

2. I stand by the assessment that this question is, in effect, a SA question, but the specific category of this question is not crucial to getting the correct answer here. However, for the sake of debate, you haven't responded to my point that the question states "properly drawn." "Properly drawn," asks for the higher standard of validity which NA answers almost never meet. If I recall correctly, all of the NA questions I have seen state "required by the argument" or "assumption on which the argument depends." This question does not ask that. The fact the question stem says the word necessary does not make it in itself make it a NA question. The "properly drawn part" cannot be ignored. However, again, I'm open to being convinced on this point.

3. It seems that the question had the highest variance of any question in this section. I found it humbling that folks who scored a 180 on this test had a 75% chance of getting this question right. This to me indicates that the question may have been written more ambiguously than questions in most recent preptests. In other words, there is some confusion here that could warrant a debate.

4. This is a platform where people note down their thoughts so that others can engage, offer a different perspective, or disagree. I find the abrasive tone you employed is corrosive to that ideal. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and consider that you did not mean to come off as abrasive. However, if I can offer some advice, keep in mind it's not just what you say, it's how you say it. This is a community where people come to learn, and we need to operate with some semblance of decorum.

In the debate as to whether this is a NA question or an SA question, I would argue this is a SA question- or at the very least it can be treated as an SA question for all intents and proposes. Whenever I have seen the words "properly draw" in the question stem, it has been an SA question (please correct me if I'm wrong here by referencing a counter-example below).

With this in mind, I like others in the comments faced a crossroads between C and E. Both provide a conclusion in which psychologists should never do something. The crux of the difference is between C: "might be less than high quality" and D: "makes it unlikely to be high quality." In my opinion, it helps to treat "less than high quality" as a term that is not defined in the stimulus- because it technically isn't. In the stimulus, we are told that satisfying a certain demand is incompatible with "high-quality" psychological help. In this case, incompatible could very well mean that psychological help is impossible to administer should such a demand to entertain be imposed. The stimulus does not provide us with information regarding the degree of quality of psychological help, so we do not know the definition of "less than high-quality psychological help".

Another choice E does not get its hands dirty with the use of this new term by using "high quality" directly. I believe that's one way to arrive at E as the correct answer.

I've found that the RC section requires you learn certain skills in order to do well. The below basic skills have been very helpful for me. If I were you, I would do reading passages while keeping two or three of the below in mind.

When line cited, try to generate your own answer before going into ACs

When you can’t generate, look for wrong answers

Quickly find and eliminate incorrect answers

Take the time to understand the question! Don’t answer the wrong question

Worry less about speed and more on comprehension.

Keep LR brain active when answer RC questions. By this I mean eliminate obviously incorrect answers like you would in LR.

7.. Have either very apparent or independent reasons to eliminate the answer choice.

I don't think you need to add experimental section if you are not prone to fatigue. That being said, while you are studying I would focus on doing sections rather than tests until you are hitting your goal number of questions correct. For example, if fatigue is not an issue, then do LR sections timed until you hit -3/-4. Once you are hitting your goals for each section, start doing timed tests.

Hi everyone, thanks so much for showing interest! We already have the six people, but if there are any openings I'll be sure to message you individually. Good luck studying!

Interested!!

Interested!

Interested!

following! I'm in the same situation.

Learn French!

I answered this question correctly but spent too much time on it. I think this was challenging for me because I read "athletes, who need to improve their muscle mass" as "athletes who need to improve their muscle mass." That once comma made all the difference.

I was able to eliminate answer choice A because the mistake the stimulus makes is considering a sufficient condition (media coverage) to be necessary condition. Media coverage of the museum event drew attendance, but that does not mean that it is the one and only way the museum could have had a large attendance. A is a tricky answer choice because it acknowledges the confusion happening between necessary and sufficient, but presents it the other way. The correct answer is that the argument confuses a sufficient condition for the museum's remaining open with a necessary condition for the museum's remaining open. This statement is semantically similar to D.

Does this make any sense?

I was unable to get this question right under timed conditions, and it's a clear sign that I have to practice diagramming the logical relationships for MBT questions more quickly and accurately.

It made a lot more sense for me to view this question as a principle/insight questions rather than a MSS. If this were MSS, it is difficult to argue that C does not make sense. During the first phase of the Industrial Revolution it was more advantageous to be skilled rather than unskilled given that unskilled labor would be replaced with machines. C matches pretty perfectly with this idea. However, C does not make sense if the question seen as a principle/insight since it does not take under consideration how both the example from past and today can be used to derive a historical insight/principle.

following!

Consider a parallel argument that is easier to understand but makes the same flaw:

Despite broad support from the public for $2000 checks from the federal government, this policy will have mainly negative consequences it it is passed, especially as it relates to the national deficit. Great leaders have the ability to make financially sound decisions in the face of demands of excessive expenditures; so the Republicans ought to do the same by not voting in favor of the bill.

Flaw: There may be non-economic reasons for supporting the bill that justify passing the policy. sure, the bill may have negative economic consequences, but it may make political sense for Republicans to vote in favor of the proposal if they want to perform well in the 2022 midterm elections.

Consider a parallel argument that is easier to understand but makes the same flaw:

The lithium battery is bound to bring an end to the tradition of high school graduates taking a road trip with friends across America. This is because road trips, made possible by access to cheap gas, facilitated the boom in such trips back in the 70s. Currently, gas is becoming replaced by lithium batteries as the most popular source of power for cars. Thus, it is inevitable that the tradition of high school graduates taking road trips will end in the near future.

Answer: just because cheap gas prices enabled such road trips to arise does not mean that they will disappear after cheap gas prices are no longer the norm. Teenagers could very well continue this tradition using lithium-powered cars.

So the question is which answer choice does a better job of explaining the skewed production of lamps in the Upper Paleolithic period (C) or (E)? If the process of making these lamps was more efficient, it explains why there could have been a huge spike in the production of these lamps in the late Upper Paleolithic period. If more kinds (as in variety) of lamps were produced by the Magdalenian culture, this variety does not explain the spike in and of itself. It is possible that the culture valued aesthetic beauty and valued a greater variety of lamps instead of quantity. A greater variety alone cannot account for the spike.

I made the same mistake as you by selecting B. But the key here is that the stimulus makes a different argument: because the original painting is inaccurate, a copy of the original painting must also be inaccurate reproduction of the original painting. But why? A copy of a painting could be a perfect replica even if the original was inaccurate. The assumption above is distinct from the underlying assumption you identified in B: a copy of an ugly painting must be ugly. In fact, I think B has pretty sound reasoning and should be eliminated as the answer choice because of this. B is a bait which plays on a confused interpretation of the stimulus.

This question turns on the phrase "a great number." Consider the conclusion: George Orwell's book 1984 has exercised much influence on a great number of this newspapers readers." What exactly constitutes a great number? It's relative. In a survey of 1000 it could be 100, 200, 300, or so on. But the information you definitely need, no matter what constitutes a great number, is how many people chose 1984 as their book. All other information is pretty irrelevant to what constitutes "a great number." (B) is the only answer that provides this information.

One clarification I would like to make is that the stimulus may not mean "personal views" in the sense of ones view on life, politics, etc. I think it referring to one's personal view of what is satisfactory and unsatisfactory performance. Given that the regulations are vague, an employee may think they did a satisfactory job but if the superior disagrees with that person's personal view then the employee could be fired. Thus, a difference in personal views can lead to an employee being fired. Nevertheless, the answer is clearly (B), since the author must assume that only supervisors can interpret rules and regulations.

I would say this is a reasonable assumption because from the context of the stimulus installation describes the hardware, namely involving the process of setting up the computer as a whole. I think interpreting "installation" as referring to software is a product of the nature of this stimulus: the technology described is so old that it distracts from what the question is trying to ask.