Is there a way to best know which tests are fresh (that we haven't drilled parts of) since they are reformatted? I don't want to harm the strength of the predictive nature of these by taking ones with questions I have already seen.

is taking the time to catch the mistake worth the opportunity cost? i felt so confident, and would have never even flagged this to review

On Q#7, I picked C. I assumed that the contrast between the emotions and results represented irony, and now I realize that was a jump. Additionally, the passage never discusses other forms of folk art.

I had narrowed it down to C or E, but I hesitated initially because I didn't want to assume that transcending meant psychological benefits. After review, I (kind of) understand that there still was enough there to make a "may" claim for an MSS type Q.

On Q#9, I initially got it right but then switched to E on BR. During BR I failed to recognize that it (AC E) was referring to the shared experiences as a result of the music rather than the cause.

Stimulus breakdown (since I struggled wayyy too much trying to understand this!):

First sentence: context

Second sentence: conclusion

Third sentence: premises

We are trying to weaken the conclusion that juvenile pacific loggerheads that feed near the Baja peninsula hatch in Japanese waters 10K miles away.

Under this argument, presenting the info that the 95% match of Baja turtles is not exclusive to Japanese turtles weakens.

I got this right but spent way too long trying to understand the stimulus. The reason D is wrong is because it doesn't really connect us to the conclusion.

I chose A, in part because I overlooked the assumption that free speech is a basic freedom and the irrelevance of legislation. B is correct because it is an overriding principle that if true allows the argument to be strengthened.

I am trying to identify why I was tricked by trap answer C, initially and in blind review. I did notice the comparative but didn't fully distinguish between generate and implement. I also was not 100% clear on what was the P and what was the C.

P: Suggestions for improving eff. derived from employers are unlikely to elicit a positive response from employees. An employer should engage in a /threatening dialogue with employees that emphasizes the employee's positive contributions to the development of such ideas (suggestions for improving eff).

C: Then the ideas will be implemented more quickly and efficiently.

Why? Because employees are more likely to carry out ideas for improved efficiency that they believe they have participated in generating. (AC B)

Why is answer choice C wrong? Comparative, did the ideas actually come from (were derived from) the dialogue? B is the better option

I got this one right but spent more time on it than I would have liked. Looking at it I see more clearly why I ultimately chose B over A, but appreciate the breakdown on how A can be seen as weakening.

This one was tricky! If I had mapped out the causation logic it might have been possible to get it, but the sneaky assumptions of AC D) trapped me. Having a hard time getting a feeling for how the test writers distinguish between unwarranted assumptions and something that should be assumed.

I think I got this wrong because I didn't recognize the conditional and because the wording of anyone vs everyone confused me. If I am not getting further confused, I should have focused on the number (one vs every/anyone) rather than the anyone vs everyone distinction. Maybe making sure I have a better fundamental understanding of the stimulus and recognizing what to look for in a PSAa will help too.