When we are reading the stimulus and separating the conclusion, premise, and context, are we supposed to ignore the context/"some people's argument"/etc, and then just focus on the Premise and Conclusion?
For example, in NA questions, it seems that after determining which sentence in the context, we can just ignore it and focus on the relationship of support to answer the question.
Am I right on this?
Whenever I go back to the questions and blind review all of them, my number of missed questions for both of the sections on the LR would significantly drop. For example, on PT 54, I got (ugh) -19 wrong and when I go back to figure the questions out w/o looking at the explanations, I would get -5 wrong.
It seems that I know how to do them, however, it took me longer to answer them (compared to the 1:40 min avg./question).
I also notice that I have more wrong answers on #17-#26. Yet, when I really look at those questions, they're actually pretty easy!
I assume that I am: a) Intimidated by the wordy questions (that usually characterize #17-26) b) Intimidated by my thinking that #17-26 are the most difficult ones.
Does anyone else have this problem? Do any of you 7-sagers have ANY suggestion/advice on how I should tackle the LR?
I'm taking PT 55 today, and I'm going to start answering #17-26. Perhaps, I'd be less intimidated near the start of the test.
mira mesa. you? we can meet half way.
Anyone?
Maybe meet up once a week to go over material or PTs. Let me know :)
@974 thank you! You have a point. I'm just struggling so hard on NA, I'm trying to grab any rule that can help me justify ways to answer the question.
But, of course, I must practice practice practice so I know when to or not to ignore the context.