Interested!

I can give my reasoning and hopefully, it helps a lil.

Contributes to I and E enrichment of future generation

Moral Obligation

Destroy Books

This is basically what the stimulus is giving us, now before even looking at the answer choices we are tasked with making this valid. And there are at least two possibilities that come to mind.

Contributes to I and E enrichment of future generation

Moral Obligation

1. Contributes to I and E enrichment of future generation → Destroy Books

2. Moral Obligation →Contributes to I and E enrichment of future generation

Destroy Books

Now in the answer choice, we're looking for some variation of this below:

Moral Obligation →Contributes to I and E enrichment of future generation → Destroy Books

Answer choice D gives us exactly that.

A = Confidence can be affected and Accuracy not be affected (Removes accuracy from the discussion)

B = Factor that affects confidence (suspects lineup in witnesses can hear on another)

A

A. (confidence affected) → B. (Factor affecting confidence)

B

Now, whoever advise the police officer wants to get to this below:

B (removing this factor)

B → A

A (to get as close to this result as possible)

To make it interesting, you could even add, "which therefore leads to the confidence of the witness not being affected". At the end of the stimulus.

Answer choice "A" completes the puzzle. if not included, then you will find something is clearly missing.

To through you off. Some can mean 1-10000.

DLS → S.J

or

RE → LMRD

LMRD

_

S.J

I'm in!

I feel like the quicker you are able to identify the premise/conclusion and then the. keywords, creating the gap, makes running through the answers, and eliminating, effortless, especially in questions like these where the correct answer is "A".

The assumption is in the support given to the sub-conclusion towards the end of the stimulus.

Example:

P: Sales of the vaccine are admin to patients only once compared to other mdecines

SC: Making the sales likely to be lower.

Assumption: Assumes that the vaccine won't be given to a higher number of patients. or assumes that the vaccine will not be charged 10x more than what the medicine would be charged multiple times to a patient.

Understanding the structure and where support is given in the stimulus is one of the key milestones of the test as far as getting better. I would anyone who is struggling with understanding where the weakening is taking place to go back over main point questions and get familized with not only finding the main concluion but also the major premises and premises that support the major premise as well. Then, in the answer choices identify which part of the stimulus each wrong answer summarized.

Went through the question so quickly and selected B that I had to reread the entire question to be sure. Then released I was right and moved on. Starting to see what JY meant by seeing the patterns and being able to navigate through the questions faster that way.

I saw A as wrong for an entirely different reason. A mention C. I caused more harm to a larger portion of insects than B.T. The Stimulus already mention such, as B.T can be used to target a specific sector of the pest/insect etc (they all fit under the same scope for me). Therefore, it is irrelevant or even mildly reaffirms the conclusion.

I think the best sign of improvement is being able to show multiple ways the wrong answer is the wrong answer and go with the quickest (and efficient) way to the element the wrong one and move to the next. In this case, JY used a key term.

I labeled the first sentence as the main conclusion and the last as the major premise sub-conclusion. I just felt like I needed an explanation for why they are wrong and the rest of the stimulus was able to provide me that explanation plus the author's opinion.

The way I answered the question was by creating two relations for the argument.

P ---Support--- Major premise

Major premise ----Support----- Main conclusion

I then created assumptions for both

Assumption 1: Something isn't off with the rate

Assumption 2: other factors cannot play into trailer trucks being more dangerous.

B. references assumption 1

the other answers are irrelevant to the key elements of the stimulus.

I write it out when reviewing to get a clearer picture of the key elements and methods used to create the stimulus. I then try to anticipate the right answer and then group or find out exactly why the wrong answers are wrong. In my mind, this helps me not only get more comfortable with the stimulus and its complexity but better understand the answers and how to better predict the right answer.

A great approach to stay engaged and utilize skills learned for LR. Before I dreaded doing RC because of how boring it can be sometimes, now I am actually looking forward to using this method; It feels more like mini sprints.

I skipped around the sentences a lot to get the core message of the stimulus then read over the details to get a more descriptive view. Started out with the process of elimination and immediately knew (well I guess POE helped too) the answer was correct after seeing it. double-checked by looking at the stimulus and selected it, all within time. It's surprising how much you can do while going through a question (within time) once understand how to read the stimulus.

I pretty much simplified the statements to arrive at the right answer.

PP →ED (easily distinguish)

PP →~E.D (not easily distinguish)

Infants(PP) → Bright Colors (E.D)

Infants(PP) → Shades (E.D)

Bright Colors →Better sales

Infants → Bright Colors →Betters sales

Couldn't agree more. Real-world assumptions shouldn't be made. They specifically threw in the phrase 'unlike adults' to do just that.

I wasn't 100% convinced on B although it matched my initial prediction. After going through the rest of the answer choices I was 100% bought in, as the others were wrong. Answer B simplified the inference. You can even go as far and saying it paraphrased the first sentence.

This question threw me off but after review, I saw how B was the best and only choice. I read too deeply into the stimulus and assume that genes govern toxins or cancerous production of some sought and bought into A. After rereading and carefully considering the relations between the sentencing I was able to see the direction the stimulus was leading to which is the appearance of caution o awareness when dealing with such experiments.

For this question, I did not come up with a prediction but kept my focus on the results heading into the answer choices. Why the results? The information prior to the results shown all seem like contextual information, just background information to the information the author really wants to give, and the answer did fit perfectly with the results.

The comparative lessons helped with this question. As soon as I identified what was being compared, which was the change in levels of cholesterol. I drew a mental chart and labeled AV1 the winner and AV2 the constant being the loser. I then went into the answer choices looking for an answer that would summarize one or both of the elements being compared. "Inhibit" in E threw me off a bit but after eliminating A-D, That was the only word that gave a problem with the answer, and the "in" inhabit gave me enough to go ahead with the answer.

The comparative lesson really helped in being able to quickly dissect the stimulus and identify the most supported answer. Before when attempted these questions, I typically felt like I missed something using the 7sage approach I now can easily spot wrong answers as well as the right ones.

I got to the right answer by first understanding Smith's main point, which is basically children shouldn't vote. While smith understood and agreed with some of Rossi's points, Smith still concluded with children shouldn't vote. Shows that he or she is ok with it being undemocratic.

Identifying the first premise as a sub-conclusion made the argument so much better to dissect and analyze. At first, I was looking for the indifference between the conclusion and the 2 premises. I figured out the gap of the first premise but had problems connecting the second. This left a sense of openness approaching the answer choices. Identifying the first sentence as the sub-conclusion and the 2nd premise as the support to the main premise, made it easier to isolate the gap and run through the answer choices. Simple error but critical to saving time and mental energy.