The answer choice, to me, just restates the premise. It doesn't add anything to the argument. To check if the AC could be correct, negate the AC and see if it would make the argument false. Since its a NA question, it HAS to be true in order for the argument to work. Here, if you were to negate it, it doesn't affect the positive correlation that is already there. We don't need for the numbers to INCREEASE, we just need for the correlation to be there.

AD‑m→WG←s→Preventable

This is how I originally diagrammed it and was able to eliminate the answer choices that didn't have anything to do with it.

Yes please!!

False dichotomy.

We have to take the premise and conclusion as they are. If it says we have an obvious bias, then we do. Its the gap in reasoning that we are to attack, not the premise or conclusion.

The most recent tests are the most important in take in full, time PT scenarios. I think you start by prioritizing that way. I see nothing wrong with using tests pre-60ish for drilling if you are short on time and won't get to all of those tests. If you see yourself only realistically getting to only 10 or 15 of the most recent tests as timed PT, then you can open up those drilling tests a little bit more.

If you go under the discussion tab and look for the RC only threads, there is a ton of great advice there.

That's a great story that should mean a lot to people. Keep up the hard work.

Since the problem set tab only allows you a max set of 50 games, you can select 50 at a time for the entire 334 game set. Might be easier than having 7sage join them all into one PDF.

What does it have to do with gap in logic?

What do you interpret your difficulty with the question to be?

Great stuff! Thank you!

Its advised to wait until the end of the curriculum in order to avoid wasting precious prep tests prior to learning the material.

While this might not be true for everyone, following the fool proofing plan JY sets out in the curriculum helps tremendously for LG. It takes a great deal of time to get through every game the foolproof way, but it should serve to shore up the LG section. This section stands to be the easiest to get close to perfect...for me anyways. With your current scoring on the the other two sections, imagine what -1 or 2 on LG would do for you. Best of luck!

Taking the full PTs from the newer tests is a must. Why don't you take the full PTs and then fool proof them afterwards? It could almost go hand in hand with your BR of the LGs.

Hi there. Unfortunately, LR explanations don't exist for PTs 1-16. Everything from 17+ should be there.

Saved as well. Thank you!

What are LG looking like for you? That's your best bet at fast improvement.

What is your BR score? And what do your LG look like?

You can strip the link of support between a premise and the conclusion without attacking the premise itself. Attacking the premise would be attempting to undermine or outright contradicting the premise. We are to take all premises at face value and assume they are 100% correct, no matter how stupid they are. For example:

Max is a brown dog. Therefore, all dogs are brown.

There are so many ways to weaken this argument it isn't even funny. But, what we aren't allowed to do, is mess with Max. We have to concede that Max is brown and it is a dog. What we can attack is that link between one brown dog representing all dogs. We can't weaken this by saying Max is anything other than brown or a dog. When you find an answer choice that attacks a premise, you can easily eliminate it. Hope this made sense.

First thing that stands out is the LG. Have you foolproofed all of the games like JY recommends? And, what do your BR scores look like?

Agree with Anthony. I would push until January at the very least.

If you're at or near your goal score in BR, thats great! I would continue taking and BRing PT like crazy. One of the only ways to square the timing issue away is through experience. You'll only get that experience by taking many, many PTs and subsequently engaging in thorough BR. As far as LG are concerned, have you foolproofed them all? Squaring these away is a good way to pick up points. -0 to -3 is doable for most people using the foolproofing method that JY talks about.

For the next 2-3 months, depending on time...2 PTs a week with good BR. Foolproof the new LG as you go.

I might be in for Skype. I just got to the introduction to logic.... but this is my second time through the CC

I would postpone. At the beginning of the course, JY speaks to what is necessary to prepare. He mentions at least 40 prep tests. Imagine the time required to take 40 of them, BR them and then follow your thinking patterns on the ones you missed. You don't want to rush this. Without a multitude of the PTs and BR, you would be going in blind.