@7Sage please fix the explanation for AC D. "However, someone’s the number of years someone lives doesn’t necessarily indicate how good their health was" does not make any sense #help

Is this question written by someone in consulting?? I am not going to business school for a reason, chill out.

@raceanu91591 Hiring more cops also does not adequately establish that there are more cops in the police force. What if they hired 100 cops and 100 cops retired? Same police force, same enforcement.

@SteadyRDO This is exactly how I was taught to approach questions like these by a tutor. It won't guarantee the right AC, but helps to eliminate wrong ACs

The way I think about this is being good (SC) requires causing NO harm (NC). Wealth causes harm, so it fails the NC.

Being in the chess club (SC) requires NOT loving golf (NC). Alex loves golf, so he fails the NC.

D is wrong because, in part, because it discusses a qualitative measure of something (well vs poorly) and because it discusses most dachshunds. It leaves the door open to Sarah's dog still being a dachshund, just in the minority.

@KCC56 I briefly checked this by just re-reading "A LARGE study..." and was like oh yeah large sounds good. Can't believe I missed this

@Optimusbladerunner I really believe that they periodically change the interface without changing the questions just to drag down the mean by a little bit. It is a lot easier and cheaper than changing the underlying test.

This is a bad question. D could be correct; less overfishing > population increases > fewer angler catch MORE fish. Conversely for C, more overfishing > population decreases > fewer eventually caught (or exact same amount caught). I will chalk this up to being an older question.

@rashysn6sara860 I see what you are saying here. Similarly, this is like saying we should ban say the COVID vaccine because it has some side effects while COVID deaths are skyrocketing. If you haven't established that the drug is the cause of the deaths, than similar evidence could strengthen the conclusion, by highlighting the desperation of the situation where this vaccine may be our only option. I always take old questions like this (PT 101 is decently old) with a grain of salt.

I struggle with the second half of AC A. "It presupposes only one possibility..." sure, it does that; but "where more than one exists" does not follow clearly. Chang stated that there is a set of genes and complex interactions that actually caused depression; while there are several genes and interactions, they may represent ONE pathology/mechanism/phenomenon and thus it is not the case that more than one discrete possibility exists.

I am experiencing a similar problem. To address this, I am working to align my PTs/studying with the time I will be taking the exam, ensure I am fed and hydrated adequately before studying, and testing at a library where it is literally just my water, paper, pen, and laptop in the carrel, because I think it is less of a skill issue and more of a focus issue. The aforementioned things detract from my focus more so than my skill. Some of these will be taken care of for you on test day, but may at least help you stabilize your PTs and feel more confident going in to the exam in the interim.

I thought "Unfortunately, no one has yet performed the crucial experiment of transporting pigeons in total darkness, anesthetized, rotating, and with the magnetic field reversed all at the same time." was a joke and not an actual experiment worth conducting, thus the alternative was conclusively ruled out.

I completely agree with this assessment; the amount of time I have spent fumbling to deselect an AC I eliminated in error is crazy. There was nothing wrong with the old system from a user perspective. I have had to change my testing strategy just because of this update. There was no reason to roll it out now; I know the June exam is technically part of the 2025-2026 cycle, but I would hazard a guess that a lot of people took it for the upcoming 2026-2027 cycle, so I think it would have been smarter to implement this change in like April when the cycle is effectively over to give applicants for the upcoming cycle more time to prepare.

I am a nuclear engineer and this question makes no sense.

I think this is the type of question where I have to agree to disagree; I don't think the presence of a single word accurately captures a whole passage, especially when I would argue that obviously just refers to the fact that some industries clear benefit from increasing returns without translating to a larger, economy-wide theory.

That said, I still have to get these right and I don't know what to do in these situations.

This question has me counting with my fingers like I am still in third grade...

I will use the written explanations to rule out individual ACs, assuming I understand the stem & stimulus initially. If I don't get it at all, then I use the video explanation, so they have entirely different use cases for me.

AC A is not correct because are not told that all organisms reproduce via sexual reproduction. If that were the case, AC A would be valid (I think).

I got this wrong because I think the discrepancy I was trying to explain was why BC foods are better than BC supplements, but AC E explains a different discrepancy, why BC foods are NOT better than BC supplements despite these two studies saying food > supplements.

The fact that they called it primary school and secondary school did NOT help

Who the heck is Lucy

(@7Sage you should probably fix the AC E explanation)

I believe they could be condensed significantly, but still found them very helpful overall. If anything, I would appreciate it if some of the other lessons referenced them more frequently. For example, the use of several referentials in a clause indicates (to me, at least) that what I am reading has a good chance of being the conclusion in MC questions, but I don't think this is part of the curriculum.

Is AC C really antisupported? The analysis claims it is, but the stimulus doesn't address what we should or shouldn't do, so I think it is better considered unsupported.