When we're tasked with diagramming, are we supposed to be diagramming it in our head and then retaining that diagram whilst shallow-analyzing the answers? Because writing it out on paper (as the testing conditions will dictate) eats up a lot of time.

I'm confused. Aren't we constantly told to chain ourselves to the information laid out in the stimulus? This question seems to rely on our real world intuition in order to debunk as opposed to find a flaw in the assumptions or inconsistencies laid out in the argument.

I'm confused as to why we're sometimes instructed to pick answer choices that directly attack the conclusion-hypothesis and then at other times instructed to pick answer choices that merely deny or support an alternative conclusion-hypothesis. What are the signifiers for when to implement these strategies?

How do you know the author is asserting their opinion in the opening lines of this paragraph when the phrasing is so impersonal?

HELP!

I chose C because I erroneously made the assumption that student preference has a causal impact on student achievement. However, doesn't E make an assumption as well? Just because teachers could be persuaded to work at the school doesn't mean that the school contains the resources to conduct the necessary recruiting efforts in order to persuade these teachers to come work for the school. In my mind, the assumption inherent to C was lesser than the assumption inherent to E. When I encounter a problem like this in the future, how do I know which answer choice to go with?

Here was my reasoning for E: In order for the charge that her novels were indifferent to important to the moral questions to be unfair, the reasoning must posit that Colette had to be intentional (opposite of indifference) in tackling the moral questions of her time through condensing emotional crises of the lives of her characters, and so this is a necessary assumption for the premises to properly support to the conclusion.

I was so proud of myself and then got it dead wrong. This shit is hard.

I do see that the critics are levying a criticism against the books themselves and not the author, which I conflated. It's so vexing how a tiny and everyday mistake like that can be the difference between a right and wrong answer.