When the explanations aren't satisfying and/or when you are stuck in your own loop of reasoning, I think it's important to have a group to bounce ideas off of each other and get a new perspective. So, if you DM me your name and number, we can make a small group and help each other out.
p.s. I don't care if you have a boyfriend, that's not why I'm asking for your digits.
Great post! You mentioned standardizing strategies for LR and RC after your first take; for LR, other than implementing skipping rules, did you use other strategies/methods that helped?
pick me, choose me, study with me
What are some trends you noticed, in terms of difficulty, between older and newer PTs? Please specify the ranges. I know that this may be subjective but there also seems to be an agreement that more recent LRs are verbose, in comparison to the older ones, for example. What other trends do you see in LR?
I know that comparative passages were introduced after PT52 - are there other trends in RC that I should be aware of? What about LG?
I look forward to read your comments. Once again, please specify the ranges you are referring to. Thanks in advance!
The 2nd sentence of the stimulus states: "if [archaic spellings and styles of punctuation in direct quotations from older works] occur frequently, the editor may modernize them..."
Answer choice (D) states: if that punctuation [from an older work] occurs frequently and interferes with reader comprehension, an editor may modernize [it]..."
Isn't (D) too broad, since it's referring to any punctuation rather than "archaic" punctuation"? Just because the punctuation is coming from "an older work" doesn't mean that the punctuation in it is "archaic." The stimulus seems to be providing instructions for a narrow subset of things from older works, archaic spellings/punctuation. So why can we safely make the leap to general punctuation found in the correct answer choice?
#help
#help This isn't clicking for me. Am I the only dummy in town?
My translation: New laws need a period of immunity...because its short-term consequences are painful, while long-term benefits aren't clear.
I chose (A) and here's why: The way I understood it was that whether we provide immunity is based on two factors (short and long consequences) - so I thought that by selecting (A), I was eliminating another factor (what voters think) - and thus strengthening the argument.
If, instead, (B) said, "Whether a law should be retained depends primarily on its short-term consequences" would that be the right answer because it focuses on one of the factors mentioned in the stimulus?