EXCEPT questions really are great learning opportunities.

Got this question right but I legit thought this was discussing actual percussion drums...

This answer is a necessary assumption. Always helpful to remember that NAs are a form of strengthening.

FLAW IN SUPER SIMPLE TERMS - Concludes numeric detail about ALL of A (small observational studies) solely b/c SOME of it intersects with B (newspaper stories).

Super high level, yes, but I for one find it hard to think about numbers under timed conditions. So when I first read this under timed pressure, my mind simply said "concludes numeric detail about ALL of A (small studies) solely b/c SOME of it intersects with B (newspaper stories).

Hope this helps!

Flaw: attempts to falsify conclusion by weakening argument structure (via assumption). These tasks are separate and distinct. Current stimulus just weakens the strength of the premises to the editorial's conclusion, but doing so does not result in the conclusion being falsified, but rather the conclusion "not necessarily being true." Two different things. Subtle.

cookie cutter flaw, though certainly worded differently.

Basically - "fails to exclude" = "takes for granted"/"assumes" there to be

a necessary condition for an object to be art

This condition is a specific criterion, which is referred to in several ways. Any one of these would work:

1. context-dependent properties

2. aesthetically relevant property

3. representation

C captures point 2/3 above and phrases it as a (mistakenly assumed) necessary condition ("aesthetically relevant property other than representation")

mastered LR and LG, but bruh RC just keeps whooping my a..

Silly me for assuming "residents" included individuals AND entities.

Count me in!

For those still confused about AC A, the AC is essentially a necessary assumption ("presumes...") that the argument fails to establish, thereby resulting in an invalid argument. The answer choice calls out the "bridge" that the author failed to establish in order for the argument to be properly drawn.

Similar schedule as you. Diag 143 (Sep 2020; -8 RC, and more than 12 wrong on both LR and LG) and second-ever PT after CC (about 2 months later) was 144. Now I am scoring 165-167 (after 10 PTs) with BR 170-173. I know exactly how you feel, so I sincerely hope my response below is helpful. Reach out to me whenever.

When I improved 1 point on my second PT (143 -> 144), I also felt distraught because I had built up an expectation of at least breaking 150. I also went to an undergrad institution where mostly everyone goes to a T10, so imposter syndrome hit me extra hard (I'm a URM). I'm never one to sugarcoat things for myself, so I took that score as an indication that I needed to refine my fundamentals and change my approach. So I broke up my next 6 months of study into 3 phases: ACCURACY, SPEED, and STAMINA.

1. ACCURACY. For 2 whole weeks, I worked through untimed LR sections from 1-19. Nothing else, just LR. While this felt gruesome, it was critical. I took my time doing consciously what I know we'll eventually have to do unconsciously on test day––finding the conclusion, premise, logical gap/flaw/loophole (whatever variant classification people want to given it), and anticipating the answer choice (not always successfully).

My accuracy increased to about -5/6 after these 2 weeks. Of course, even that is kind of discouraging when you know there are people who score better than timed. But this was improvement FOR ME! Also at this point, I knew that my errors weren't due solely to fundamentals. It was more likely due to trap answer choices and argument subtlety, which is quite different from totally missing the mark as I usually was. Few people talk about this, but just as important as predicting the right answer is eliminating wrong answers. The former comes from the CC, the latter from exposure to actual questions (via problem sets, full tests, etc). For example, I am much more attuned to how "some" and "other" are used in trap answer choices on weaken questions (aka seemingly attacking the conclusion, but not always).

Same for LG - I made problem sets for all grouping and sequencing games 1-35 and drilled these in between my LR days.

That's when I shifted to 2. SPEED. (around Jan 2021). This meant taking timed sections, but never a full PT. This I would do from Mon-Fri. I work full time, so I did and (still do) these before/after work.

Once I got a hang of speed (around March 2021), I started to incorporate full PTs on weekends and work on 3. STAMINA. That's where I've been ever since. On my third PT, I scored a 160 (a 17 point jump from 143), and I attribute that 100% to the gruesome grind of untimed work.

I now average -5/6 LG, -5/6 LR, -4/5 RC, but my biggest issue now is timing rather than fundamentals which was my biggest obstacles at first. I am also considering a tutor for LR, though I continue to drill weaknesses (mostly W, F, and MBT). But I always BR and still do drills!

Point is - I still need work to get my goal of 172, but I hope this offers you some encouragement that starting out in the 140s like we did is only a starting point and all it means is that you will need to work harder than people whose diag was already in the 150s. Doesn't matter if you get to your goal score with sweat and tears; once you're at your dream school, no one will care how you got there, only that you did!

One final thing - negativity is a self fulfilling prophecy. You might not think you're capable of breaking 150 or 160 or even 170 b/c of where you are RIGHT NOW, but don't ever think for a moment that you can't do so ONE DAY. This process is gradual, slow and nonlinear, but you will continue to improve because this test is learnable and you overflow with the motivation to learn it!

Low blow, LSAC. Low blow.

Flaw: Takes for granted that subjects being told original statements were false implies absence of any credible evidence to support original statements. Fails to consider that subjects could have been told the original statement was false and yet still have found credible evidence to support the original statement.

D exposes this flaw.

FYI - There's another question with this exact same flaw, but I'm not sure from which PT. It's about newspapers and dramatic studies. If anyone recalls, please paste below for others in the future!

.

Not gonna lie, the only reason I did not choose A was because it just seemed too good to be true for a second-to-last question on an LR section.

interested!

My explanation for AC E. Hope this helps!

AC strengthens by introducing a sufficient condition that allows for the premises to better draw the given conclusion.

The condition being added is "longer beverage usage in particular place," which is sufficient for "wider beverage availability" (which is a premise in the stimulus).

So you get this as a result:

ANSWER CHOICE/SUFFICIENT CONDITION → PREMISE → CONCLUSION

[longer beverage usage in particular place] → [wider beverage availability] → [mate origination in Paraguay]

Note to self: The "context" portion of a stimulus is still relevant and may be referenced in an answer choice, as is the case with AC A.

Timing tip for these and other similar Principle questions. Since the exam is now digital, use CTRL + F to find the different conclusion descriptors in the stimulus ("intentional" "random") among the answer choices. Then attack the answer choices as 2 separate groups, rather than chronologically from A to E. Helps to more easily apply the principle and eliminate ACs.

Sooo subtle wow

Yeah, no way I would have known that it was allowable for an AC to target only one of two flaws. Now I know.

Amazing achievement! So so proud. How well would you say your immediate impression after an exam matched your actual performance?

I'm currently 165-173 but I never quite feel fully confident about how I scored after an exam, even when I get a 170+. I find that I almost instinctively flag a question for BR, even if only just to review an answer choice I didn't fully grasp during the timed test despite the fact that I know that answer isn't better than the one I chose. For example, during PR questions, if I see that C matches the structure perfectly, I will move on but still flag that question review D and E just to bring myself from 95% confidence to 100%.

I guess my question is - How/did you ever develop that internal barometer of confidence where you just know that you have done well or that it is OK to move on from a question without being 100% confident in your answer.

I hope that makes sense and thank you so much for any insight you can offer!

interested!