I think something really important when it comes to MSS is realizing that the answer shouldn't be too "strong." What I mean by that is some answer choices will say things like "all, never, always, etc." which are strong words that most times make claims that are not supported in the stimulus or go beyond the scope of the argument. The correct answers for MSS are usually subtle and don't add any new information. Hope this helps!

@ Thanks for the tip! Oh and one more thing: how do you deal with trap answer choices/really tough questions on RC?

@.lavado I started labeling everything on passages like circling turning points and boxing different viewpoints which helped me a lot!

@ I totally agree. I actually tried to go through the PowerScore Bible for RC and found it so much more informative than 7sage. Luckily LG comes naturally to me and is my best section and I usually average about -0 to -5 so that will be my saving grace for this exam.

@ thank you so much for your advice! :)

@ thanks for the link!

@ I'd be okay with -4 on the June test lol. I made a plan to do two RC sections once a week from PT's 1-35 but I'm mostly worried about the fact that I heard from many people that the RC from the modern exams is considerably tougher and I'd be wasting my time practicing with the older tests? What do you think?

@ yeah I think thoroughness is definitely something I need more work on. Most of the time when I BR RC I just lose my patience and move on to the next passage when I get stuck on a question.

@ thank you so much for your advice!

@ Thank you so much! Best of luck in your studies :)

@ Thank you for being so thorough about how you go about RC. Do you think it would be a good idea to do untimed sections first to be able to understand the structure and once I get better at structure identification I can start taking timed sections? Or should I just always do the sections timed?

@ Definitely timing. I'm such a slow reader and I try not to miss essential details + I find myself going back to the passage for tough questions and wasting so much time and therefore I don't usually get to the last passage and am forced to guess for each question.

I chose C while timed and then chose A on BR. I hate myself lol

Stimulus: In western economies, more energy is used for buildings than transportations. Much of the decline in energy consumption since the oil crisis of ’73 is due to more efficient use of energy in homes and offices. New building technology, which make lighting, heating, and ventilation more efficient, have cut billions of dollars from energy bills in the west. Since energy savings from these efficiencies save billions of dollars a year today, we can conclude that 50-100 years from now they’ll save more than $200 billion a year.

What I’m looking for: There won’t be much of an increase in energy costs during the upcoming 50-100 years?

A) Yes!!!! This must be true.

B) Wtf.

C) Nah.

D) We have no idea.

E) New scientific principles?

After I finished the CC I was also very confused about how to approach taking PT’s and drilling but so far this has worked best for me:

Monday: Timed PT then BR section 1 & 2

Tuesday: BR section 3 & 4

Wednesday: Same as Monday

Thursday: Same as Tuesday

Friday: Go over the questions that gave me most trouble from the PT’s + foolproofing two LG sections from PTs 1-35

Saturday: Drill two RC sections from PT 1-35

Got this wrong on timed and BR. Chose E timed, and on BR chose D. Completely misunderstood the correct AC (B) and quickly crossed it off while going down the AC’s. Ugh

Stimulus: Health officials recommend people to reduce intake of high cholesterol food like red meat. The recent decline of total consumption of beef shows that many people are following the health officials’ recommendation. But restaurants specializing in steak are flourishing despite overall decline in restaurant industry. Therefore, there are still a lot of people ignoring the health recommendation.

A) Probably, but this doesn’t describe the flaw.

B) Nope.

C) No, the argument does not assume this.

D) There isn’t a causal relationship here.

E) Yes! Just because people are going out to eat steak at restaurants, doesn’t mean that they’re ignoring the health recommendation. They could be having a cheat day or something.

Stimulus: with decreased production in this year’s rice growing countries, prices of grains have increased. Analysts are blaming this increase on the fact that only a small percentage of world production is sold commercially, while the government controls the rest. Little rice is being traded freely, and slight changes in rice production can really affect the amount of rice available on world markets.

A) Doesn’t weaken the argument.

B) This seems like maybe it could strengthen the argument.

C) Perfect.

D) Okay, so what?

E) Don’t care about other kinds of crops.

This question really tripped me up. The stimulus is pretty straightforward, but the AC’s are absolute garbage lol. While I was taking this timed, I hesitantly chose A. I re-did this question on BR and was down to A and C, and still chose A like an idiot. I guess I just really wanted to be done with this question and didn't pay close attention to why C is correct.

Stimulus:

R: When a region’s economy is stalling, many people lose their jobs. This causes spending on consumer goods to decline, making more people lose jobs and worsening of the economy. Eventually, the economy gets so bad that the prices collapse; the lower prices allow people to increase spending on consumer goods, which later results in economic improvement.

T: People can’t increase their spending if they don’t have jobs or money for anything outside of basic necessities. Therefore, price collapses cannot improve the economy.

A) Totally irrelevant. I don’t know why I chose this AC twice, but now I can see where I made the mistake.

B) But how does that even relate to price collapses and spending?

C) Yes. This is correct, because people who still have jobs will be at least making some sort of contribution to the economy by spending their money.

D) What about things outside of their basic necessities?

E) Nope.

Stimulus: In an experiment, scientists changed a single gene in a certain species of cloned flies. These flies did not have the eye cells that give flies UV vision, even though cloned siblings with unchanged, identical genes had normal vision. Therefore, scientists have shown that flies of this species without UV vision must have some sort of damage to that gene.

What I’m looking for: The altered gene is responsible for lack of UV vision?

A) Okay, so what?

B) Yes. This absolutely must be true.

C) Sure, but this doesn’t close the gap in the argument.

D) Well, who knows?

E) Irrelevant.

Stimulus: Tech innovations will help food production to increase as populations increase. But increases in food production won’t matter unless societies become more centralized so that the factors contributing to the production of food can be better coordinated. But, historically, the more centralized a society, the larger number of people who perished if/when it collapsed. Therefore, increasing the centralization of a society in order to increase food production will worsen things when that society collapses.

A) Not supported in the stimulus.

B) Yes! Technological innovations in food production need for a society to be centralized, which doesn’t always have great outcomes.

C) We don’t know anything about that.

D) Only by improved technology?

E) Nope.

Stimulus: Most parents want their preschoolers to learn as much as possible. But instead of giving their kids general learning opportunities, they direct their kids’ learning to their personal concerns. Because children have a natural curiosity and thirst for knowledge, they learn a lot from adapting to the world. Therefore, directed learning won’t help them very much.

What I’m looking for: directed learning is not essential.

A) We don’t know that.

B) Again, we don’t know that.

C) Nope.

D) Yes. Matches my anticipated answer.

E) Irrelevant.

Stimulus: Industry experts are expecting safer work environments following improvements in job safety training. A survey, however, stated that in the 1980’s manufacturers who improved job safety training had an increase in on-the-job accidents in the months following the changes in the training program.

What I’m looking for: Not really sure with this one. Going to let the AC’s guide me here.

A) Irrelevant.

B) Yes. It could mean that more employees, more accidents.

C) No. We are talking about increase of accidents AFTER the changes in the training program.

D) Okay, and…?

E) Irrelevant.

Stimulus:

X: Tourist demand in Nepal for cheap thangkas has resulted in a rapid production in thangkas with symbolic inaccuracies, a sign of dying art. Nepal should stop selling thangkas to tourists because this will help artists create thangkas that meet traditional standards.

Y: Art without dedicated artists is bound to die. If tourists can’t buy thangkas, artists will start making other art forms that tourists can buy instead.

What I’m looking for: Y weakens X’s reasoning by stating that his idea will lead to a different outcome.

A) No, she doesn’t deny the problem.

B) What sources?

C) Yes. By prohibiting tourists from buying thangkas, artists will resort to making other art forms and eventually thangka art will begin to die.

D) Analogy?

E) Nope.

Stimulus: Because (gray rabbits -> rabbits) is true, the statement (suspected criminal -> criminal) is also true.

What I’m looking for: the relationship between being a gray rabbit and a rabbit is not analogous to the relationship between being a suspected criminal and a criminal.

A) nope.

B) similar to answer choice A. Descriptively inaccurate.

C) Yup. Matches my pre-phrase that the two relationships are not of the same nature/not analogous.

D) nah.

E) like D, still not describing the flaw.