You have to have taken a PT in order to see the data under "Trends." If you have, scroll down and under "Question Type Analysis" you'll see a chart with the different question types. This is where you can see the different priorities assigned to each type based on your test results. One of the columns is titled, "Num. Expected" which tells you about how many questions to expect on the test for each question type. I'm pretty sure that number is for 3 sections of LR though so keep that in mind.

Hover over "Practice" at the top of the page and you'll see it pop up

I thought about it the same way. And it still works if you do it that way because the correct answer, E, makes the same mistake. "Snow-removal companies" gets reduced to just "companies" in the second premise/sentence.

Yes, I believe this is what B is saying. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The ACs are not always going to be phrased in the ideal way.

I realize this is an old comment but for anyone struggling with this, I'd rewatch the video 8:27-9:05. He explains that B is saying the argument is just a restatement of the conclusion. That IS circular reasoning. "Tantamount" means basically equivalent. Sub out the word "tantamount" for "equivalent" and hopefully you can see how it's an example of circular reasoning aka begging the question.

For those who think the length of this video is excessive, keep in mind that this is a lesson that goes beyond an explanation of a single question. He's spending time going through each AC to show us how to do these questions in general, not just this specific one. I personally found the reminder about the piecemeal analysis strategy within his explanation of option E to be really helpful. This kind of repetition across lessons is a very effective teaching strategy. #feedback (from an ex-teacher with a masters in education)

That was a great explanation! I did something similar.

You're making the same claim J.Y. does. I'm glad that worked for you but the knowing vs. reasonably expecting argument doesn't do it for me because in other questions knowing would be enough to trigger the sufficient condition of reasonably expecting something.

This was my thinking. Notice that the stimulus says, "she could have reasonably expected that her column would lead people to damage Mendels’ farm" and answer D says, "Mrs. Sandstrom knew that her column could incite trespassing that could result in damage to the Mendels’ farm."

Knowing that it could happen is not as strong as reasonably expecting that it would damage the farm. That is why I eliminated D. It didn't trigger the sufficient condition on that basis alone.

Hope that helps someone! I'm curious to see what others think about this.

So basically when there are multiple assumption gaps we should focus on strengthening whatever gap is "closest" to the conclusion.

I'm glad you asked this. I was wondering what people do as well. I watch the explanations even when I get questions right for extra training on thinking through the answer choices logically. My decisions can be very quick when it's timed so I find it necessary to practice slowing it down and thinking it through. It'll help with the harder questions later on and it reinforces logical thinking in general. Sometimes I do skip ahead in the video to the next answer choice if I'm being impatient but I like to hear the reasoning for each AC. It's really the metacognition that brings the most growth so the more I think about the way I think, the more I improve.

"Children are gross" 😂

You can see under Analytics that 2.6 MBTs are expected to be on the test

I started doing it this way and it's really helpful. Thank you!

I think both ways are true. But I'd like to see the answer so...

#help

So then shouldn't the conclusion be that there is something new to learn about wheat? And that is supported by the last two sentences would would be premises?

#Help Question 5.4

Can someone please explain how "Major Premise: Sure a blacksmith center in the village after some sweat, monetary donations, and perseverance might be a reality" supports "Main Conclusion: It just seems making a pitch for a blacksmith center really matters"?

I had written that "Sure a blacksmith center in the village after some sweat, monetary donations, and perseverance might be a reality" was the Minor Premise supporting "Sub-Conclusion/Major Premise: So it follows, proposition to build a new enterprise—although challenging—truly has merit."

Thank you!