i found it useful to focus on the big picture when you do the RC. after reading the RC, i generally remember the structure and main point of each paragraph (sometimes when the subject is hard, I will spend some time on the definition of the subject etc.) so when asked small details in the passage, you should have a vague (if not everything) idea where these info is located and always go back to the passage (if time permits) to confirm. that's what works for me. but sometimes under time constrain, it is difficult to go back to the passage to confirm. i rely on my memory (the first round reading). hope it helps.

Thanks JY! I love it

Hi JY, Thanks for the video! it has been very helpful. I just wanted to point out one possible mistake in the video:

the answer choice C: should be diagramed as:

Premise: P some M some D

Conclusion: P-s->D

instead of Premise: D some P some M

Conclusion: D some M.

gracias!!! it is clear now!

I feel like this question was weirdly constructed for argu part question type as a lot of fluffy info was added. this should be reconstructed as a MBT/MSS question type.

where you at?

thanks for the response. All of his LR lessons use Qs from SOME pre35 but not all. I have glossed over the curriculum.it seems video explanations for after36 are posted but not for all the pre35 ones.

i will probably skip this question in actual exam. Without knowing how to prioritize different premises, i diagram almost every element.

Premise: AR->IP

Conclusion: AR-->/S, and AR--> PE

therefore, IP-->/S is the missing assumption.

it seems the author makes another assumption other than the answer choice A: to elicit sympathy is likely to have an impact...

I picked C coz the rest are obviously wrong. so i had time to read c carefully to understand it;s the contrapositive of the core of the argument.

I was thrown off by the weaken except (the author being against certain theory) question type. I was able to eliminate A,B & E very quickly but was struggling b/w C and D. at first glance, i thought D is irrelevant. but now as I was watching the video, i thought: maybe because of their advanced ways of preserving meats, painters could still have eaten sea animals (but in a different form!-preserved). thus, they painted preserved sea animals and people can't recognize the original form of sea animals. lol but that does not mean painters did not paint what they ate. the absence of sea animals in the paintings is not sufficient to justify the theory. this is so subtle that i don't think i could figure it out under the timed pressure. any suggestions?