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.

that is what i put down D seems to me more like a SA choice

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

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.

I agree the use of elimination is the way to go.

here is my understanding of the question: I think sometimes these holes in the arguments are so huge that I would not have imaged ppl would actually argue like this lol

anyhow,

M concludes that we wont be able to perform a double blind study on the new drug becasue the various effects on the patients bodies will give away which group is taking the drug. (thus rendering the test of efficacy of this drug ineffective).

E: saying M is wrong because E thinks that assumingly (the word exists?) M knows the result of the study.

what's wrong?: M is talking about the side (or maybe good) effects of taking the drug; while E assumed the results of the study.

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.

this question assumes that you know what supply and demand principle means. once you know the principle, this one is not that hard.

Premise: R, Low supply

Conclusion: Price increase

the assumption? what's left out in the premise? the demand does not decrease.

like JY said, this is not a common Q.

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.

I doubt in actual exam i would have time to go through the exact progress as JY did. i would most likely skip it and come back to it if i have time left

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.

yes. you have to follow closely what the stimulus guides you to believe but not what you know about the subject.

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?

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

gracias!!! it is clear now!