Where did you find the resources for Comparative RC? I would love to hit those.

Ohhhh

That makes so much more sense!! Thank you so much!

@mitra23 said:

Sure I’ll give it a shot.

The conclusion is that when a business performs a notably ethical action, the news should publicize it to help them patronize the business. The support offered is that media should help businesses that meet “high ethical standards”. Ask yourself, where is the potential hole in this argument. For me, the first thing that stands out is use of similar but clearly different terms. “Meeting high ethical standard” and “notably ethical action”. AC B says that meeting high ethical standards is primarily a matter of “refraining from unethical behavior” which is not the same as a “single notably ethical action.”

I think I was trying too hard to look at this from a formal-logical perspective. So if I understand this correctly, because meeting high ethical standards is mostly refraining from unethical behavior, does it mean that the news media wouldn't really be able to motivate people enough to patronize that business, because it's most likely not going to be a "notably ethical action"?

Thanks for trying, but what you call the politician's "reference to/ restatement of the opponent's argument" sounds exactly like the politician IS addressing the opponent's argument.

You wrote: “Some of my opponents have argued…in favor of reducing social spending. Instead of arguing that there is excessive public expenditure on social programs, my opponents should…”

The first part definitely looks like he DOES address the opponent's argument. You yourself wrote "Some of my opponents have argued..."

This is FREAKING AWESOME!!!!

Thank you so much!

I eliminated A because I thought that the politician addressed the argument advanced by the opponents. I.E. There is excessive public expenditure on social programs; therefore, we should reduce social spending.

Can someone explain why that's not addressing the opponents' argument? #help

Yes and no. No because I am used to practicing right below the set of rules and the first question, all being on the same page. Yes because I can just start practicing with separate scratch paper, and familiarize myself with how it's going to be when I take the test digitally.

I definitely agree. My first digital PT didn't go well because I couldn't focus like I could on paper. But then I started solving questions or even full sections on the tablet. When I got used to it, I started scoring like 5-8 points higher, which is kind of crazy. I'm taking the July exam, so I've been alternating each practice test between paper and digital.

This brings me to my question and concern: If I don't get a satisfying score because I got the paper form in July, would I be able to register for the September test? I though they would let us scratch out the score and take a free test, but they won't release the score until August 28th, and the deadline for the September 21st test is like in the beginning of August. Any info on this?

#help

@chadwickang104 said:

One strategy is to do an extra logic games section so that you can foolproof at the same time as PTing. It is important to do five section tests at least a couple times, but I typically stick with four section tests for practice. If you feel like stamina is an issue for you, then you might want to do some five sections. Yes, you do get the PT in digital version if you buy it as an add on

That's a great idea! Thanks!

https://7sage.com/lesson/strengthen-psa-sa-questions/

Watch this!

Also, you've highlighted the major difference. The word "support" can be anywhere from strengthening to making the argument 100% valid (which all fall under the umbrella of "strengthen", while "Most helps to justify" denote the Pseudo-Sufficient question type.