is there a difference between your timed and blind review score? I am on the same boat.. with hitting high 150s on my timed and high 160s on my BR. I just recently broke a 170 on my BR for my most recent test.. i think it is definitely taking the time to understand even the questions you got right fully. And for me personally, its just remembering to slow down because i find that when i go too fast i mess up and overlook the arguments/assumptions/correct answers.

hiiiiii

in a logical world: if you dont have a reason to do something, why would you do it?

this isnt a must be true question, reminder that MSS questions leave some room for ambiguity. Compared to the rest, it is logical to believe it is the strongest option based on the context that Cezanne influenced at least SOME modern artists of abstract art.

I wasn't taking the first sentence as context and thus I overlooked C.. fml

Yes exactly i think ultimately "opposite" is the nail in the coffin for A because the opposite of Ruths statement would be no you dont need diversity to be a politician, which Steph does not state.

LMAO like girl i did not say that at all..

i got tricked by "thus" indeed, this question reminded me to identify where in the stimulus does the author state a sort of opinion.. basically their hypothesis. Rereading the last sentence again, that clearly sounds like a premise and is def a sub conclusion meant to strengthen the main conclusion (their hypothesis).

would this be a form of circular reasoning? using as evidence the same as your conclusion..the computers in this case

I was fixated on the idea that the speaker being European and saying.. no these plays dont mean shit to us because only americans see them.. then choosing E lol rip

I agree w u so bad

my flaw was not distinguishing between the "5 countries who are interested in peacekeeping" and "some countries in favor of peacekeeping". The latter is a general claim, where we know that the 5 countries are apart of but we have no idea if they are the only ones interested in peace.

Had the last sentence of the stimulus said "some of those 5 countries interested in peacemaking are firmly against refugee spending", then AC C would be more applicable. But again, we dont know if the 5 countries in the UN are the only countries in that generalization of "some for peace but against refugee" part of the stimulus. We only know they are apart of the peace.

C addresses that by saying " not necessarily soil" in which crops have been rotated which is exactly why its right. You are right in saying "could be true" for C but you are overlooking the fact that C is not definitive in that area.

The thing is the entire this is the condition, it is not necessarily a causal chain:

You are seeing it as this:

Failure to rotate --> depletion --> fertilize

/fertilize --> /depletion --> /failure to rotate

The correct way to look at it is like this (in my opinion):

(Failure to rotate --> depletion) --> fertilize

/fertilize --> /(Failure to rotate --> depletion)

Because when you negate that, you are negating the conditions entirety - It is not a causal chain from one to the other.

Then you see, you don't really get confirmation of whether or not crops were rotated or not.. you only know that that relationship did not occur. ; leaving it open to the possibility that "not necessarily" suggests from AC C.

no you are wrong, C addresses that by saying " not necessarily soil" in which crops have been rotated which is exactly why its right. You are right in saying "could be true" for C but you are overlooking the fact that C is not definitive in that area.

The thing is the entire this is the condition, it is not necessarily a causal chain:

You are seeing it as this:

Failure to rotate --> depletion --> fertilize

/fertilize --> /depletion --> /failure to rotate

The correct way to look at it is like this (in my opinion):

(Failure to rotate --> depletion) --> fertilize

/fertilize --> /(Failure to rotate --> depletion)

Because when you negate that, you are negating the conditions entirety - It is not a causal chain from one to the other.

Then you see, you don't really get confirmation of whether or not crops were rotated or not.. you only know that that relationship did not occur. ; leaving it open to the possibility that "not necessarily" suggests from AC C.

literally thought it was gonna be 5 star

OMFG im translating the correct answer of Q24 for those who needed it like me:

"would likely cause less harm than prevent" is basically saying "would likely prevent more harm than it would cause" which is a good thing, because we want something that is consistent with the implementation of these rules in the way the author arguments (to avoid/lessen harm)

Another way of understanding it: it is saying the total amount of harm caused would be less than the total amount of harm prevented - again stating that it will prevent more harm than it causes (a good thing consistent with the authors claim)

23 i got right on timed but second guessed and chose C the second time, but now i see that it cannot be generally inferred because it doesnt even show up in the second example of steroids.. how can it be generally necessary if it doesnt show up in an example given..

While consent is mentioned on both topics, driving and steroids.

thank u for identifying my flawed thinking!!

James is arguing against the claim that many people think the voting public is unable to evaluate complex campaign issues. He proceeds to cite the fact that TV commercials from Reade discussing complex issues have led to his popularity, assuming that 1) the public is understanding his discussion of the complex issues present in the commericals and 2) that there is no other reason's for his popularity.

Maria concedes James' conclusion regarding Reade's popularity, but pushes back against the second assumption mentioned above by stating that Reade is just seen as more confident.

Lets go back, what was James' argument? That people can in fact evaluate complex campaign issues, according to him as evident through Reade's commercials discussing them making him popular. Maria says no, and addresses one assumption.

AC D addresses the other assumption, and states that no.. the people watching these commercials dont even understand Reade's position on these issues. So then, how could James support his argument if both of his assumptions are shown to be false?

Maria's argument is that James is wrong in concluding that people can evaluate campaign issues, and AC D supports her counter in that.

This is basically a overgeneralization flaw on behalf of Olaf. Olaf misinterpreted "normal" to apply the same way to everywhere, when Charlene specifically said this applies to a "region's" temperature.

thank you for breaking it down so simply!!

C got me the first time by the exact same way Kevin mentioned but i thankfully noted my mistake on BR and chose B!!

i agree

I do not see how "most commonly receive funding" and "most common response is to boost the funding for that public service" are synonymous.. one is talking about the receiver receiving funding while the other is stating the frequency of an action being taken..

E is a typical "attack the conclusion" answer choice, we dont care about possibly decreasing the amount of salting roads because we are simply trying to weaken the argument that regards explicitly the current rate of saltying.. E goes on a tangent and discusses something else.