Hi, I have been studying consistently for quite a few months and consistently get anywhere from -4 to -10 on LR, and around -8 to -12 on rc depending on the difficulty. My max score timed is 161 and blind review 165ish. I plan to take it in September but am really struggling with getting consistent 160+ scores. Does anyone have advice on how to get there? I study hours every day.
- Joined
- Apr 2025
- Subscription
- Free
Admissions profile
Discussions
I will definitely try this thank you for sharing. Hopefully it helps!
I was caught between b and c I thought c was a trap because it was harping on what I thought were outside assumptions about culture and mental health. Wish I could have that one back.
Pick any answer for these types of questions and ask yourself out loud, if this answer is false does the entire argument fall apart? If it does, that is your answer. Basically the answer is the bridge to the conclusion, other answers might give you a helicopter to the other side but those answer types offer an alternative route, if they are false it doesn’t matter towards the argument. The right answer will bridge the gap every time.
I’ve found that weaker answers are actually usually right for necessary assumption questions!
If e is true it strengthens the argument a lot, but since this is necessary assumptions, if e is false can the argument still work? Yes, it can. E is a specific and strong argument but it rests upon the assumption that the authors purpose is required for the argument to work. However whether or not the authors purpose is x y or z it is not necessary to reach the conclusion. It is a sufficiency necessity trap.
This is now the 5 question in a row I’ve gotten down between 2 answers and picked the wrong one
The past 4 questions I’ve done I’ve had 2 Poe choices left and chosen the wrong one 4 times in a row ;-;
That is exactly why I eliminated D as well. I thought (is it reasonable to assume that these animals are important to us?
I got this wrong simply because of my thought of most vs all. When something goes extinct it is not unreasonable to assume that ALL of a species was wiped out, not most. For instance, most of the fish in a pond where caught and moved elsewhere. only 2 remain from thousands. is it reasonable to conclude they go extinct? probably not.
yes, always look through everything unless you can guarantee that your answer is absolutely correct. but as a practice go through every answer choice. at least just skimming it to ensure you did not miss something
Practice, practice, practice. Unfortunately, there is no other way to get faster than just repeatedly doing drills and honing your skills. I still need to work on my accuracy as well! Worry first about getting as many right as possible, do not worry about your speed at all. Once you feel comfortable with getting them right, then try and doing them a bit faster!
It is helpful to look for transition words that indicate the authors voice
How I like to think of it is the sufficient condition, if met, will always lead you to a valid conclusion (if valid). However, if a sufficient condition is NOT met, that doesn't mean you can NEVER reach the valid conclusion, perhaps there could be a different route taken to reach it? For example, let's say one must have use vehicular transportation to get to the event on time. You use a car, therefore you will get to the event on time. Let's say you did not use a car and used a bus or a train or a plane or a boat etc. Just because you did not use a car doesn't mean you didn't get there on time. That is how I think about it at least.
Not necessarily, it is normally interpreted to mean more than one in everyday conversation. But some does not constitute the meaning of greater than one, it can refer to at least one.
I could be wrong but I think so, if something absolutely guarantees that senator amidala delivers the speech than the argument would be valid because the premise and conclusion essentially logically follow
from my understanding, all sentences will contain a clause, but a clause does not necessarily constitute a sentence. for example, (she ran) is a clause and a sentence. However, (When she ran) is a clause but not a sentence, it does not express a complete thought.
This is exactly why I eliminated B. This test wants us to just assume that if you already have a higher self-confidence, it wont increase further? Why?