my discord buddies keep asking me to jump into Valheim. I'm like- that sounds incredible, but it's the goddamned devil and will destroy my motivation for prep.

My most guilty pleasure has been Rust. I had to retire a few months ago because it will literally eat your life if you play it. Incompatible with real life goals lol.

This is a phenomenal question. I recall seeing the knowledge/fact flaw in an earlier PT and the explanation from that question popped into my head immediately when I saw this one. Unfortunately, I did still miss this one (-2), mostly b/c I didn't understand how to properly write the formal logic expression of premise-conclusion. But I learned a ton from this explanation and it really made both of the flaws sink in even deeper. Thx JY.

Fellow nurse here (traveler). I'm taking June having been studying since November, and that's only because I just cancelled my current contract to take the next 4 months off to solely focus on this. It's so difficult to maintain focus and momentum when we work the way we do. I would recommend August regardless of your goals, because you deserve to do the best you can. If you do have to work the whole time- pace yourself.

Euro trash earthworms. Kek

Another reason E is wrong (I chose E as well): the anthropologist does mention that a certain sequence could have occurred, but the researchers never actually claim anything about the sequence of events the anthropologists is positing.

All they claim is that "taboo is due to this." They literally never mention symbolism or ritual, much less if it preceded the taboo or came later.

Now that I look at E with this in mind, it would be possible to eliminate it even if you didn't realize that the anthropologist isn't actually arguing anything at all.

Give yourself a year, but understand that there's some cushion built into that. It's unlikely that you will maintain constant effort over an entire year. But if you give yourself a year, you're much more likely to get in at least 6 months of high quality prep.

What a wild ride this has been.

I also had the Japanese Bells LR/Econ LG/Brittain RC

Honestly, I'm feeling good. Like.... really good... It worries me a little. I know for a fact that I got -0 on LG as I had time to go back over the stimuli and my rule translations and all flagged questions.

RC felt ridiculously easy compared to the PTs in the 80s I've been taking. The passages were long and dense, but I felt like they took it easy on us with the actual question difficulty to compensate... My worst RC performances have all been in those sections where the questions have a sort of LR-esque quality to them, for lack of a better word. This test didn't have that. At all. It weirded me out and still does. I had 3 questions flagged at the end that I felt 75% on. I usually miss 1 or 2 in RC that I don't flag, but I had time left over this time so I'm hoping that since I never felt rushed, that I didn't make any dumb mistakes.... fingers crossed for -3.

LR felt fairly average. One question in particular threw me off in the first couple of questions, with a super "obvious" answer choice, and another answer choice that was verbose, but I believe correct... It was a really strange rendition of the typical answer choice for point at issue, and I still wonder if I was overthinking it. I think I had like 4 questions flagged at the end and almost never miss unflagged LR questions historically. So here's hoping for a -2 on LR.

Weird test. It was cool to see the slight differences in LG stimuli. I also noticed some uniquely-flavored LR answer choices that I thought were cool.

Thinking my best case scenario is 70/75. Worst case is 67/75. I reckon I'm flirting with 170 pending curve..... God I hope so.

Do you feel you’ve developed the skill of knowing when to cut costs and just move on to the questions? I also have noticed my misses come on easier games. What I have realized about myself is that in games with fewer rules, I need to just jump in and trust my intuition. Much in the way we usually “flow” through 1-10 on LR.

Glad the authors didn't include an AC that delineated between "licensed drivers" and "capable adults." I feel like they got a little lazy in their wording, leaving open the possibility for unlicensed drivers, which don't have to be assumed to be "capable adults."

This is rated as an easy question, but for overthinkers- it's actually kind of sneaky. I almost discounted E because I thought "the "evidence" given kind of sucks and doesn't actually to anything to prove the babbling is linguistic. It only helps conclude that it may not be non-linguistic"

Lesson learned: since it's a method question- the "evidence" referenced doesn't have to be good. The author thinks it is evidence for their point, and that's enough. Author's POV.

damnit. I think i read 14 too fast as "fails to assure that the public will be protected." I missed the "assure the public that...."

The author is pretty clear that the public are basically plebes who can form their opinions on a judge's objective nature based on nothing, ergo- the public's opinion on what looks like bias is irrelevant.

well played, lsac.