Subscription pricing
My last couple of practice tests have been REALLY rough for RC. I can read and understand the passage pretty well in around 4 minutes, but spend way too much time on inference questions (both author agreement/disagreement and general inferences about the passage questions). My RC scores have been tanking my overall score, I'm consistently -0 to -2 LR, -0 on LG when I finish the section but sometimes don't get to the last 2-3 questions. I was at a solid -3 to -5 with RC for the majority of my studying up until now, usually just from not finishing the last few questions, but recently my uncertainty with these inference questions is killing my score. I can usually only get it down to 2 or 3 answer choices, I overthink them for 2ish minutes, and then invariably choose the wrong answer. Looking for tips on how to answer these question types more confidently, especially when 2 or 3 answer choices can reasonably be supported by information in the passage. How should I be quickly assessing which statement for which there is more evidence that the author would agree with it?
If anyone has recently taken PT87 and remembers passages 1 and 2 from the RC section, would be interested to hear your thoughts/approach on the inference questions - especially question 6 from passage 1 of PT87! Or in general, if anyone has receded severely in RC - how did you get your score back up? Any and all help much appreciated
Still having trouble understanding why C is the correct answer. I understand why all of the other choices are wrong, but Lin's response offering temporary replacements as a solution to permanent replacements implies that Lin doesn't disagree that forbidding permanent replacements is too extreme, just that Lin thinks there is a solution to give the companies sufficient leverage. So I'm not sure where it is implied that the disagreement is over how much leverage companies lose when permanent replacements are forbidden; it seems like Lin agrees that it costs companies too much leverage when permanent replacements are forbidden, but that it is also too unfair to employees, so then Lin offers a solution to give these companies sufficient leverage without being unfair to employees. It seems like the disagreement is about whether or not there is an intermediary solution - whether forbidding permanent replacements is the only solution to the problem of whether or not the companies will have enough leverage. What support is there for the idea that Lin's "no" may be taken as an implicit response to the issue of how much leverage companies lose when forbidden from hiring permanent replacements? To me it seems like the claim to which the "no" is responding is entirely ambiguous. #help