Congrats!!!

If you're referring to RC, I would focus on understanding the passage. Don't rush it. In fact, some passages may indeed take you 5-6 minutes to read and fully comprehend.

You'll go through the questions much faster if you have a good grasp of what the passage is saying rather than going back and forth and trying to read quickly.

@maddikavoossi232 said:

LR seemed easier than usual for me. I usually score a -0 in LG, and I was running out of time for the last game, so I had to guess the last few questions unfortunately. I had 2 RCs, one was easy and one was hard, so I'm praying the hard one was experimental.

Same for me.

I'm going to score a 162+ tomorrow!

Yes, I also got rid of E for the same reason. Majority could still have a minority issue that would be relevant to Terry and then the application will not be guaranteed.

It was quite easy to make that distinction and then (C) becomes very apparent as the correct answer.

Q6 very sneaky.

SAMEEEEE

Appeal to ignorance.

Hey, I'm interested!!

Interested!

(C) is the oldest trick in the book. Confusing sufficient/necessary

Interested, thank you!!

something about this question makes me feel attacked

definitely, it could be a part to whole fallacy if this was a flaw question

We can't make any assumptions about different fuel compositions not being able to work with. AC B is seemingly a trap and is not a necessary assumption. So what if the fuel differs? Perhaps the technology allows for different fuel to be used.

AC E is correct because if the device is just as, or even heavier than carrying the fuel for the return trip, then it would not make sense to use the device. It would not even be possible to use a heavier device because it would not be able to be launched from Earth to begin with.

It is necessary for the device to weigh less than the fuel for the return trip itself.

Appeal to ignorance

Interested, thank you!!

It's becoming more apparent to me when an answer choice is wrong by flipping necessary/sufficient conditions. I easily eliminated (A) and moved on; oldest trick in the book.

Pavlov would be proud.

argument by analogy

same!!

same

You got the right answer but your translation into lawgic is an invalid format.

You can take the contrapositive of the premise to get (/HL → /WS)

Thus, you should format it as such:

/HL → /WS

_

PT ←s→ /WS

The conclusion is that some students who have part-time jobs (PT) do not walk to school (/WS).

In order to make this valid, we must assume that some students who have part-time jobs do not go home for lunch.

PT ←s→ /HL → /WS

_

PT ←s→ /WS

This argument form is valid: A ←s→ B → C leads to A ←s→ C

Your existential quantifier, some (←s→), should come before the universal quantifier, all (→).

While you did get the correct answer for this question, it was based on pure luck and the invalid form can easily trip up a question on the real exam.

I'll try to explain it in the way I thought of it.

We know that microprinting is less expensive than using special ink. The author also says that even though this is the case, we should still use ink because it can be detected by any person.

(A) tells us that anticounterfeiting techniques that rely on experts cost a lot. So even if we microprinted money (it costs less than ink), it will eventually cost just as much or even more than ink because of the fact that people will have to pay experts to detect if it is counterfeit or not.

This strengthens the argument that we should use ink.

LMAOOO, I MISREAD THE QUESTION STEM!