I don't understand how B weakens the argument. The conclusion is that a child's taste preferences can be changed based on exposure to different food. If you negate B, it would be that in general, children's taste preferences do NOT change. If this were true, how could their taste preferences be changed?

I'm having trouble understanding why C is totally irrelevant. Cora is trying to argue that the design of the keyboard was to slow typing, so why would C, making acquiring typing skills difficult, be irrelevant to her argument?

Wow, thanks for the suggestions everyone! Skipping strategy seems to be a resonant idea, and one that was mentioned in the webinar. I'm definitely going to work on just disengaging and coming back to a question. I'm also working on confidently moving on and not checking and checking after I choose an answer choice, as well as minimizing engagement with answer choices where possible (i.e. Hunt Mode) to prevent myself from picking trap ACs. Really appreciate everyone's thoughts!

If A said "Legislation will not benefit constituents unless politicians are not primarily concerned with their own careers", wouldn't that be a necessary assumption?

Benefit → ~Primarily concerned w/ career

Contra: Primarily concerned w/ career → Benefit

Negate: Primarily concerned w/ career AND benefit

This premise would imply that politicians are primarily concerned with their careers, but that legislation will still benefit constituents.

For #20, why is D incorrect? It's such a general statement, and it seems clear that the case of Indian colonization (paragraph 2) and Algerian colonization (paragraph 3) exemplify cultural experiences crossing borders.

I'm confused on A. Since the conclusion is that NO ant species is threatened, doesn't that imply that NO ant species lives in a geographically isolated area (since this would make them threatened)? And if that's the case, then doesn't that presume that Tierra del Fuego and the Article Circle must be geographically isolated?

Wow, interesting. I think I'm spending way too much time on the stimulus. Thank you for the suggestion!

Great job and amazing work! I'd love to hear more about how you improved your LR scores. You mentioned drilling flaw questions and other types you had trouble with. Do you have suggestions on timing? I've been struggling giving uneven amounts of time to different questions, some too much and others not enough.

I think someone may have asked this before, but I'd really appreciate if someone could explain how the statement 'all that is needed to make money disappear is a universal loss of belief' translates to ULB --> MD. Doesn't 'needed' indicate that ULB is a necessary condition? Or is it the case that since it says 'ALL that is needed,' that means that ULB is a sufficient condition? Seems like a pretty subtle but important distinction, and I don't think this was covered in the CC unless I just missed it.

I've occasionally done 1 passage, BR, check answers, repeat for a full section. Other times, I just drill on an entire RC section. I think both are good, it's helped me get into the habit of how to time each passage and questions (I shoot for ~2-2.5 minutes passage, 6 minutes questions), although I still need to work on moving a little quicker and getting out of each passage in 8.5 minutes or less. Hope this helps!

For answer C, if metabolism of Mg slows as with age, then wouldn't that mean that the risk of those medical conditions would decrease according to the argument. Wouldn't this weaken the argument by showing that drinking soft water wouldn't necessarily lead to low Mg?