I got this one right but I had a different reasoning.

(Conclusion): "Employers should engage the employee in a nonthreatening dialogue ..." [Because] (Premise) "the ideas employers want to try will be implemented more quickly ..."

Is this reasoning incorrect?

151 after studying for 3 weeks for 1st time taking this test. Looks like more Ping is in my future. Might also purchase some books (used 7sage exclusively thus far).

Two of the four proctors at my test talked throughout. Can I get a refund for my test?

I have a problem with Q. 21. I see where it says in the passage, "...at or near the ridge crest, the rocks are very young, and they become progressively older away from the crest..." How does this let us infer that the rocks will be oldest at the continents? There is no mention that the mid-ocean ridge lies midpoint between continents, so why couldn't the mid-ocean ridge be located directly adjacent to a continent? If this were the case, then the youngest rock would be near the continents. Are we supposed to infer that the "mid" in "mid-ocean ridge" indicates that it's located in the middle of the ocean?

Shoot, I get it. Watched the video 2 more times, and I get it. So glad I'm doing 7sage instead of a classroom course. I can rewind as many times as needed!

Having a hard time understanding why A is incorrect. It appears that the council member asserts that since the other council members haven't provided evidence ("...but they have provided no evidence of this...") against his view (the shoe factory should be used), that his view is correct ("Thus, the shoe factory would be a better shelter site.").

It would seem that B is also incorrect because it supports the conclusion. The conclusion states that the organic factors (i.e., deficiency in a compound) are not distributed evenly around the globe. Answer choice B agrees by stating that deficiencies in compounds vary around the globe.

This definitely ranks up there with one of the trickiest questions I've seen. By tricky I mean that it BEGS you to believe that you don't understand how to translate the logic in the stimulus, or that you've missed something. Great explanation as always.

Thank you. Same question here. The point I missed was that we have to understand that McKinley can only be referring to side effects.