This one was definitely a difficulty of just not understanding the nuances of each answer option. While I knew what the concept of the correct answer was, I didn't know which answer choice correctly reflected that answer.

#Help I understood how the embedded condition was converted by I think I may have missed something before. How is an argument concluded to have an embedded condition? What are the indicators or structural differences that make it an embedded condition rather than just a sufficient and necessary condition?

I feel lied to... I felt the passage was mid in difficulty but in no way feel rewarded by this question...

#feedback #help I chose E because while the video explanation states that this piece of info doesn't support dating the LHB, I would disagree. I feel as though it could be read and interpreted as, since we know this sort of vigorous bombardment would lead to a lack of life on a planet, we can assume that this happened 4 billion years ago as life on Earth did not start until 4 billion years ago. I realize that these are indirect assumptions, but I thought more of than not, we have to apply these indirect assumptions.

Low-res summaries definitely are very helpful, and I think I should keep using it, but I realized that it appears so much easier to do when I'm listening to these walkthroughs than when I'm doing it on my own. I'm not sure if it's just the lack of focus when doing the drills or a lack of understanding, but the inability to break down the passages is definitely the main reason why I struggle in RC so much.

#feedback in a question like this, I was down to A or D but ultimately chose A. I was swayed to choose A because of the statement, "they are also experienced by the protagonist as an internal compulsion". Pairing this with the quotated "choose" and "recognize," I feel like it's valid to conclude that the protagonist while thinking they are making a choice on their own, are not aware of the actual influence of the gods.

I feel like question 13 really depended on your ability to understand how selling and trading stock works and understand that sort of language, because even after the explanation, I don't understand what the language meant to begin with...

#help I thought D was wrong because a control group assumes that the elements of the subject testing were controlled. Would that umbrella the assumption that this group's vit C intake was controlled too then?

This one was definitely a tricky answer because I read B as being loyal could equate to not switching frequently while C doesn't really change the profit margin because the assumption is when you're buying high-tech there is someone there to help you and if anything, don't employees make commission most often? (That last point is obviously an outside knowledge assumption but still).

Questions like this definitely are simply a matter of not understanding the grammar for me, haha.

I've been really struggling with NA questions, and this is one of those that is a good example of why I struggle. I was down to A and D, and ultimately switched to A last second. There was another question earlier where the correct answer was similar to A where it was a NA that no other thing will happen in the future in order for the argument to be true and I think that swayed me. In moments like this, I don't know how to tell one is better than the other.

The logic of this one confuses me because I would assume that if something is more conducive, the understanding is that it is also more important, therefore filling that necessary gap.

Reading these comments, it sounds like a lot of people who also got this question wrong also struggled due to the maybe more ambiguous use of "social" and "heavy" drinkers. I get how it could be argued as cut and dry, but I also felt that there was not a clear enough distinction of how much a social drinker actually drinks and also how it contrasts to a typical heavy drinker.

While I did get the answer right, I was definitely stuck between D and E for a second. For this question type I definitely have a hard time breaking down the stimulus proficiently.

I need to work on reading the answer choices more thoroughly... Definitely thought C said just "someone" not "someone else"

EDIT: Reading the other comments, I realize that my understanding of PART to WHOLE was what was wrong! Which makes sense now!

Questions like these are hard for me because the concept of making an argument for a whole based on evidence for part was what I was looking for, but I didn't realize that A was that due to the wording. I read it as the opposite. so I was confused.

The explanation to the answer made sense... it just tripped me up because I thought the focus would be on the efforts of wanting to save the product. Sometimes I struggle with gauging the bigger picture vs. the small picture