@meganz621559 said:

I dont understand when people say "Create a drill with all questions from that section" because it only lets you select 25 questions maximum?

Go to Advanced Drill choosing and type in PT number, Section number, then search. Then click choose all in the area and you can adjust the time before you start the drill.

just realized my mistake, sorry

Grace > @gracejcall300 said:

I am having the same problem - mine could just be random because the drops haven't been very significant (168, then 167, then 166), but at the very least I don't seem to be improving. It sometimes feels like the more I study the worse my score gets. Any advice?

I would not say you are necessarily doing worse; that is a pretty typical score variation for a small, 3 test sample. As regards to your inability to improve, you might need to better gear your studying to specifically your weaknesses (i.e. RC generally or WSE LR question type). I wouldn't change your general study pattern; just focus it more on your detailed needs based on your PT stats and general feel/time commitment to these question types/sections. Good luck!

Ayrtonhall3: Although you may not be happy with it, your score is still impressive, so great job! If you feel groggy, burned out, or unengaged with the material, a couple day break might be helpful to help you feel refreshed for the next couple of weeks. I definitely would not stop taking PT's overall because the comfort and focus of planned PT's allow you to do better on test day than otherwise. Good luck on August!

cause and effect, phenomenon-hypothesis more so. not really a premise-conclusion argument.

generally, only RC passages and the late logic games passages are split up in regards to difficulty because one question can be easy under a hard passage and another question can be hard under a hard passage, so they are more important/relevant there. each question in LR can be dramatically different in difficulty because 1 stim for each question, so overall difficulty is not really relevant

it is partly, you can look at the question in many ways.

ya those are the only possibilities in a correlation relationship

this is the relatively rare instance in which the critic would say the professor's premises are incorrect (they do not work alone, or it is a formal process to learn how to rap). it's usually not going to be the right answer for these questions.

ya, another way of doing this is just saying sentence 1, thus sentence 2; sentence 2, thus sentence 1. for whichever makes logical sense (not necessarily grammatical,) the conclusion will be the sentence/phrase after "thus."

it is; the giveaway for the first sentence not being the conclusion is its factual nature. it is not a claim that receives support, it is being used as a fact which supports the next sentence. a test i like to use sometimes is saying the two claims together with the word "thus" switched from the first to the second. whichever one logically makes sense would be the conclusion.

for example, in this question, we can say "superconductor development will enable energy to be transported farther with less energy lost in transit. thus, this will probably improve industrial productivity." if it was flipped around, it would not make logical sense: This will probably improve industrial productivity. thus, superconductor development will enable energy to be transported farther with less energy lost in transit. the grammar does not matter; just which statement supports the other (the one being supported is conclusion).

exactly right

C is kind of like the necessary condition; in order for Checkers to have had this bad motive shown by its refusal, answer choice C would have to be true.

no, respectfully, both your responses are incorrect because the sufficient condition is that one has an interest in any species. If one has a strong interest in certain plant and animal species then they fulfill that condition. I don't think A's incorrect aspects were discussed in-depth enough in the video, but your responses do not show A's issue.

But the thing is that all 5 answers cannot reasonably weaken the argument. LSAC will rarely give you 5 answer choices that are going to weaken (if at all) because that is up to toooo much interpretation. Only 1 answer truly weakens the link between the premises and the conclusion; this is probably why it has not been emphasized.

I don't think this is a great strategy; remember, the negation of weaken is NOT weaken (this includes but is not exclusively strengthen). It's a good exercise to really understand this for all questions!

I think you could have saved a lot of time by just choosing B the second you saw it. B is a clear example of a predator's numbers changing and its dramatic change throughout the whole ecosystem. However, if POE works, then keep doing well with it!

D shows that stretching people are already injury prone, so the information from the study is not reliable because the people in the stretching group already have a higher chance of injury, which they probably lower through stretching. Thus, not only is the study unreliable (it actually might point to a hypothesis that stretching is helpful because it lowers the injury-prone state to a level equal to non injury-prone and non-stretching.

D only strengthens the 12 year study's results; it does not actually change the relationship between the two studies or explain why they can both be true at the same time.

social inertia and resistance to new challenges are also very similar; imo might even help the reasoning by showing why social inertia (desire for status quo) is strong.

I think the issue is that the set is for components with greater heat tolerance. That is where the necessary condition comes in play. The question is only regarding the necessary condition for a component with a greater heat tolerance, not a component overall or under any other set. So the assumption that the video made is still important.

do it for questions you need; if you cant answer the first time or intuitively then use a scratch. generally, the earlier questions are easy enough to answer without writing down, but, for some, it is easier to write down later questions or not. worry about accuracy before timing at early stages.

you do get scratch paper, but for questions that are easier/early in the test it is best for you to eventually do it in your head. if you're early in your studying, do not worry about timing, just worry about accuracy for now. you will eventually be able to easily answer this question.

outside of a pretty easy elimination of wrong answers, you could just observe the relationship in a general sense: you know this causes this which is a potential cause of this which is a cause of this. There's a possibility that something can happen based on the stimulus (7Sage is trying to map it out for us, so we can intuitively utilize this in the future).

this is still a cause within the mechanism: the lining issue causes cancer in asbestos vs inside lung issue causes cancer with cigs. it just explains that if the information within a causal mechanism is not consistent with the premises then that hypothesis is weakened. Since there is, within the causal mechanism, another reason/method (lining vs inside) of getting cancer from each cause, it is evidence that the hypothesis is weakened. Do not get too caught up in this; it's just a general way of weakening/strengthening ideas.