We assume the data is correct, up until the correct answer choice tells us it IS correct. By giving us that choice, we MUST then assume the following: that mod. exercise lowers blood chol, which in turn lowers risk of hardening arteries which then lowers the risk of art. bloackage due to blood clots. this is classic conditional logic. What also makes this hard is how obvious the AC is, which may deter people from choosing it.

Also, C may be TRUE, but it is not right.

Great explanation thank you!

I am struggling to get these under timed conditions because I feel like I can't process what I am reading the first time, so I have to re-read the statement. But without time conditions (in the blind review) I got this right away... I feel like I cannot perform under time pressure ugh

If the birth rate decreased, does this justify the argument that there has been a dramatic increase of people over the age of 65 living in this region because the average age has increased from 52 to 57?

The idea here is to find something that will strengthen the overall argument, or the bridge between the conclusion and premises.

SAME! for both timed and BR, I quickly chose a but then thought the word deceptive was too strong

Hello :),

My first PT (the diagnostic I guess) was 137 as well. I stopped studying for literally a year or so, not only because I was discouraged but for personal circumstances. I've studied on and off since january and just started to increase my studying about two months ago. I was very scared and super anxious (like palms sweaty moms spaghetti kinda thing lol) to take another PT but I thought "well if its crap its okay, I am still learning" and I was able to jump to a 151, this gave me a bit more confidence and the last one I took I got 154 (blind review 165). I will be taking my third PT today.

I think a year of studying is absolutely enough time to reach 170+ for you. Just focus on understanding first, and then on timing. The score you got is the score you got, leave it behind, learn from it and move on. You can only go up from here :)!

Good luck :D

I am interested!

This is great to hear cuz my first diagnostic was a 137. I have been studying for a while now but I get so anxious taking another preptest because of that diagnostic. Thank you for this!

I have never been so happy to a question right, this was so hard. I guess I am making progress ... finally :')

"proper assholes" DEAD.

He does negate the necessary condition by saying that they max out at one, and therefore cannot teach more than one intro class in the same term.

So you can say either FD --> /Teach more than one OR like JY does it FD --> can only teach one

I had the lawgic... but could not really understand the ACs :( .

Just when you think you're doing well ...

You've gotta be kidding me. We are told not to make extra assumptions but D relies on a huge assumption that high levels of environmental pollution is what causes cancer and not high average fat intake?

#help

The director is not defending any action, also there is no action in this stimulus that is frequently carried out.

Thank you so much for this explanation!