What worked for me was depending on how much you studied for this exam, your practice test scores is where you want, I just relaxed the last few weeks before my exam. I studied, but I only did a PT on Sundays and reviewed that deeply through the whole week and take another PT and do the same thing again. There is no need to go hard by doing a shit ton of games because your just going to get nervous when you see the actual games on the exam. Confidence is half the battle. I was super relaxed leading up to the exam because I 'barely' studied. I basically saw my PT's as a Sunday workout. So if I were you, start enjoying the last few weeks and get your mind right because being calm during the storm is how to score high!

same

D doesnt explain the skeleton portion of the stimmy

If A is true, it gives more reason as to how impactful birds are against spiders. We just know that bird prey on spiders and shit. But if we want to strengthen the biologists conclusion that spider increase was because of lost of birds, we need to show much more how much of powerful impact birds are in decreasing spider population.

D is wrong because if the two bird populations proliferated, that means there are much more birds and yet there is still less spiders.

Regina-

Additional revenue from leasing will be allocated to transportation, and not the other short budgeted areas.

Amal: New revenue from leasing to transportation would fill up funds for other areas.

The two disagree about whether the new additional revenue would help other shorted budgeted areas.

Answer choices

B is wrong because we don't know what Amal thinks. I thought Amal would disagree because if there is extraneous funds coming out of the transportation budget, that means there's more money going in than needed, but that's an unwarranted assumption.

D is correct because Regina disagrees and Amal clearly agrees. Regina disagrees because the new revenue would not RESULT in existing funds to be reallocated. Regina says that the leases would not be used to reduce shortfalls.

Also, adequacy wasn't stated in the stimmy.

The way I saw this was looking at this more generally and abstractly, the author is supporting the general idea of expanding moral complexity, but within that complexity should not have vampires be associated with it.

there was two instances in this section where the referential phrasing got to me which lead me to the wrong answer. READ CAREFULLY

Paraphrase of stimulus (your own words)

- Most people make N which eliminates nicotine

- smokers who make THE MOST COMMON FORM, tend to smoke more

= this is because the faster nicotine eliminated from ones body, the more craving for another cigarette, so therefore..... the most common form of N eliminates nic faster than any other.

You see, I was reading THE MOST COMMON FORM too quickly and thought it meant they make most which means they have more of that common form which lead me to D. But that isn't the case. I was reading too quick.

This is how you arrive to A and not D.

Bullshit answer choice- leads to too assumptions but fuck it

Paraphrase of stimulus (your own words)

- some animals play dead even though it wouldn't matter because the predator would eat them either way.

Answer choices

C is wrong because this just talks about predators that are common in the area. This is a subgroup of the predators the stimmy is talking about.

B is right because if they leave their food in a hiding place, that means while they're carrying the "dead" animal that animal can finesse and skirt out of there no problem

This was question two and I looked at B and was like nah lol

just because they cant determine doesn't mean that the majority of citizens in the country don't have a majority. It may as well be that they cant determine but it actually is the case that the citizens do have a majority.

the word AND between the two premises indicates that both of them are at the same level of support. One does not support the other.

More individual species, the better we understand.

The less individual species, the less better we understand.

C captures that.

D is wrong because important is irrelevant and out of scope.

If you chose A, focus on the conclusion and the last sentence. It's not saying pay is the factor, its saying that the way they are paid is is the factor in not choosing to work in the art field.

I noticed the equivocation when I read it but I didn't realize B was exploiting that phenomenon.

B is correct because it's showing how the actual defintion of High ETHICAL STANDARDS is not what is being purported in the 2nd premise of a (notably ethical action). So therefore, news media shouldn't actually show those notably ethical actions because they aren't really high ethical standards.

C is wrong because whether or not is easy doesn't make the media not cover it less. Just because its easy doesn't mean its not worth covering.

Basically how I see it is that A is more specific while C is vague and requires assumptions.

A weakens because it covers both aspects of when another driving is patiently waiting and when a driver is honking at them. This can be seen by using a comparative answer choice (the more pressure...) C is wrong because "drivers nearby" doesn't necessarily cover drivers patiently waiting and drivers honking.

The reason why I got this wrong was because I overlooked that the abstract paintings were part of the movement as well. That's why i chose A

Paraphrase of stimulus (your own words)

Premise- Killer whales talk differently when they are looking for seals or looking for fish.

- Harbor seals use their ability to distinguish this talk to avoid being eaten by killer whales.

- Therefore, young harbor seals start with an aversion to all killer whales but then learn to ignore the ones that don't

Assumption(s): The author takes for granted that what is true of harbor seals in general is true for young harbor seals. The author introduces young harbor seals without any mention of it in the premises.

Answer choices

A: Irrelevant/out of scope. Doesn't''t strengthen the hypothesis

B: who cares about fish? who cares how they hear?

C: This one was a quick eliminate when i first saw it, because it was talking about mature seals. But this is saying that the aversion to all killer whales still exists because even when mature, if they hear a new dialect from a whale, they would run away. And the biologists hypothesis says that young seals start but going away from all whales. So if mature whales still do this, that means young whales do this even with the killer whales that eat seal because they don't know the dialect until they learn. this is a abstract answer choice that makes you think deeper.

D: This doesn't matter, but I chose this one because it talked about young whales. This doesn't make the hypothesis more believable.

E: This doesn't strengthen because it shows that killer whales actually don't learn from hearing they learn from experience.

The bacteria is what causes and the only cause from what we know that creates the degradation.

Also what about the government? They too are advocating as well

So D is wrong because of the word eventually. It is very broad to say eventually when the author says "in the near future". If D is true, eventually can mean in 1000 years. But we are talking about how it is a mistake to say it would happen in the near future. Does eventually= near future? We would say yes because it is included, but we can't assume so. Eventually can mean like 1000 years as I said before. So D is just a vague answer.

Composition of the fuel is irrelevant to the conclusion. We would have to assume a lot of things to make B work. Indeed composition can make fuel heavier than others, but we don't know that.

The flaw is that the author's definition of a good movie reviewer is WHETHER OR NOT someone would enjoy a particular movie based of the review. We were just given an example of when someone enjoyed the movie based off of Sartore's review. That doesn't fulfill the definition of a good movie reviewer.

I was overthinking this question...

Paraphrase of stimulus (your own words)

- G built a new highway linking several city suburbs to the downtown. Yet the average commute time went up.

Maybe it was because all of these suburbs now are all going into a SINGLE highway down to the city???

Task (based on stem): describe the flaw, identify parallel structure, link (…) to (…), etc..

Answer choices

A: This doesn't resolve why time increased. If most people came from one suburb, then what was it like before? We don't know.

B: there is a lot of assumptions with this one. The largest suburb can have very little people. Largest suburbs can mean per capita or per square mile.

E: This is good. It talks about what happened after the highway was built and it shows how time increased. A bunch of people started coming in which creates congestion and thus increasing the time of the commute.

Paraphrase of stimulus (your own words)

- G paper increased staff to avoid factual errors

- this isn't working

- G paper runs more corrections than its paper

Assumption(s): The author assumes that increasing staff to avoid errors means that there would be less errors outputted. But what if the G paper beings in more errors by sources that they care about more than their competitor

A: out of scope

B: out of scope

C: This is good. If they follow up more on complaints from readers than their competitor, that means they are seeing more errors than their competitor would. Which makes sense to increase staff.

D: I think D goes along with the reasoning the author gives. If they are checked more by more editors, then there would be more factual errors.

E: out of scope.

I chose C because I thought the relative little price in labor was what made it more fashionable but the sitmmy said little labor AND more fashionable, those two things are both co-existence with one another, doesn't mean it was a causal relationship.

E is correct because fashion moving away is part of culture and moving away means shifting or trending in a different direction.