Here's a link on reddit that I think might be helpful if you'd like more information:

https://www.reddit.com/r/ApplyingToCollege/comments/ksen04/the_letter_of_continued_interest_2021_edition/

Yup! It's basically like it doesn't acknowledge a possible objection to the argument (and that objection weakens the argument)

Wrong answer journal on your wrong questions. It seems like something trivial but I was able to pinpoint issues I was repeatedly making in LR and properly fix them and now I go -1 to -2 in LRs. I did the following columns for my wrong answer journal:

Stimulus

Question Type

Wrong Answer Chosen (Why you picked it? Why did you think it was correct?)

Correct AC (why is it better? what was the incorrect AC missing in comparison)

Also make sure to drill question types you get wrong often in LR. I worked extremely hard on LR and would be happy to give tips on it.

I don't have any tips for LG. Im a science student so that one came naturally for me.

For RC, I read a book and it literally said read and comprehend and I know that sounds insane but I learned that majority of RC passages aren't relevant to the questions and you have to learn how to pick out the information that will be important because it helps you read faster while disregarding the "fluff" of the passage. Keep track of the POVs in the passages. Try to keep very short summary (like 5 words) of each paragraph in your head. e.g "Opponents- lack of clarity" or something like that so you just have an idea of where to search for things if necessary.

Some people ( I haven't done these methods) have mentioned doing the passage with the most questions first and I read a person on this site mentioned that they skip the comparative reading to maximize points in the other passages and return to comparative reading with whatever time they have left; if they run out they just pick one letter for everything in comparative reading. I haven't done that either. But try a method and see what works best for you.

Hope this helps!

Okay so we are essentially trying to show that the presence of biomarkers in petroleum does not in fact refute the scientists challenge of the dominant view (which is that petroleum was made from fossilized animals and plants). What AC (D) does is that it shows that there is an alternative other than animals and plants which could have caused biomarkers to be in the petroleum. This weakens the argument because the geologist is trying to assert that either plants or animals caused the biomarkers since they are living organisms. What the geologist does not account for is the fact that there are OTHER living organisms (that are not animals or plants) which could have caused the biomarkers. AC (D) presents an alternative which is textbook weakening strategy.

I see where you are coming from but I believe you are trying to weaken the wrong part of the argument which is leading to the confusion. This weakening is not supposed to show that the scientists are right but is supposed to show that the geologist saying that the biomarkers in petroleum refutes their challenge has a loophole which can weaken their argument. That is the part of the argument to be weakened. What you are trying to do is to show that the bacteria caused the carbon deposits or in some way contributed to that and that is not what the question stem is asking for at all. Its asking you to weaken the geologist's argument, not confirm thee scientists' theory. This is leading to your confusion. Hope this helps!

So in conditional statements, there is the 'unless rule' which states that whatever is after (or modified by) unless is the necessary condition and the remaining item is negated and becomes the sufficient condition.

The stimulus states 'advertises will not pay... unless people buy". Therefore people buy is the necessary condition and advertises will NOT pay should be 'negated' (basically the logical negation/ opposite of whatever is there) to advertisers WILL pay.

You end up with: P--> B

Contrapositive: B ----> P

(~ is not)

I think you translated incorrectly. Perhaps run some drills with the unless rule and see how it goes. Hope this helps!

I'm not sure if this will help but will try my best. So, the argument states that it is not true that Sullivan was passed over for his promotion because he was much older than the competition. And justifies this logic by stating that there were several people older than him who have been promoted. What the argument fails to consider is that while Sullivan may have been the oldest (or older than the competition) in his particular promotion situation, that might not have been the case in the other promotions associated with those who the argument states are "older than Sullivan". In those 'other' promotions, those 'older than Sullivan' might have been the youngest in comparison their competition. This allows for us to pick AC (C). That is even though they were older than Sullivan, they were still the youngest in their particular competitions. This is a Absolute vs Relative flaw I believe. Hope this helps.