You are so right. JY on 7Sage, for example, may have a high score but he is one of the worst video tutors I've come across. There are waaaaay better videos on Youtube, unfortunately they don't come with all the practice sets. To me, 7Sage's only value is all the practice problems so I don't have to go out and buy 10 different books, but the tutoring is a complete joke. I just went through a video lesson where he did not explain the wrong answers at all, and even breezed over one of them saying "well that's just obviously wrong." Like, what if it isn't obvious to everyone? It's very demoralizing and it feels like he's calling you stupid. I get that he has a high score but I see now that that doesn't really mean anything.

#help

SO, the main conclusion is that these paintings must have depicted the diets of these people. We are trying to find four answers that WEAKEN this conclusion, and one that does not weaken it.

A. Once on the island, they hunted and ate land animals. - Does not weaken the argument that the paintings are of their diet. We have apparently just misunderstood their diet. They did not eat sea creatures, or did not depict them, but obviously these paintings were of animals they ate. They are depictions of their diet.

B. Parts of the paintings did not survive. Again, does not weaken the argument that the paintings are of their diets. Also does not strengthen it. We have an incomplete depiction of what they ate, but we know some of what they ate. Or maybe they're not paintings of animals they ate, we just don't know. Doesn't rule out that they were paintings of food animals.

C. The Cave paintings had lots of pictures of land animals. Ok, again, not really strengthening or weakening the argument that the paintings depicted food animals.

D. They had advanced methods of preserving meat. This does not weaken the argument that the paintings depicted food animals. It just means maybe they didn't have to eat fish, maybe they carried beef jerky, but it certainly doesn't weaken the argument that the cave paintings depicted food animals. It actually strengthens the idea that they din't need to eat fish so they were depicting the land animals they regularly ate.

E. The cave paintings were done a long time ago by the original inhabitants of the island. Ok, so, again, this does not weaken the argument that the cave paintings were of food animals. It strengthens that argument, actually. The original people on this island apparently ate land animals and painted pictures of them.

So, the goal is to find which of these things doesn't weaken the argument that the cave paintings are of food animals. Someone make it make sense.

I didn't choose C because at no point does it say those pesticides are used on products that make it back to the US. The stimulus is talking about things that are imported back into the US. B seems to weaken the argument more because it's saying that maybe only a small portion of the pesticides we export are the bad kind. It's not a perfect argument, but it's a weakening question. The answers are often not prefect. That seems to be tripping me up a lot. It's like they want you to use common sense for some problems but not on others.

All of his pop culture examples come from media that targets male demographics. Just an observation. My brother knew what Goku's power thing was; I did not.

I messed up on this one because for some reason (no idea why) I thought they were asking me to find the flaw. They're not. I mean, it is a flawed argument. Just because something has happened one way in the past, doesn't mean it will every single time. We know this. But they just want you to restate the reasoning in the argument, which is B.

Answer E: the argument is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument: overlooks the possibility that specialists and general practitioners each tend to excel at treating a different type of injury.

This does not make one lick of sense to me.

The premise of the argument is basically: patients who are treated for <6 weeks show 31% improvement, regardless of if it's a specialist or a general practitioner, and patients treated for longer see 50% improvement, regardless of spec or gp. It does not say that the people who were treated longer had different or more severe injuries. Maybe some people had a pulled muscle and were recommended less than six weeks therapy, and some people with the same injury were recommended longer, either because diff doctors or just because, who knows. According to this data, we cannot say that they are different at all. We just know that people have the same results regardless. So, if 100 people were treated for less than 6 weeks by a specialist, and 100 people were treated for less than 6 weeks by a gp, in both groups 31 people are going to say they improved. There is zero evidence that they are different at all at treating diff types of injuries, and we know nothing about the injuries being treated. They could all be slipped discs in the same part of the spine, absolutely identical. The answer contradicts the premise.

#help

This one was extremely confusing for me. Seemed like the difficulty rating would be much higher. I figured it out as such:

at first, I came up with a prediction. The flaw, in my mind, would be: well, just because there are other celestial bodies besides stars and planets, that doesn't mean that they are the light-generating kind. I became frustrated going through the answers, not seeing my prediction. Why wasn't there anything that stated, "just because they're not stars or planets doesn't mean they generate light?"

Answer E does say this, but in a very confusing way. It says "Planets are not the only celestial objects that do not generate light." In other words... there are those pesky "other celestial objects" that aren't stars or planets and aren't light-generating. It confirms the prediction of, hey, just because it's not a star doesn't mean it's making light. It could be something besides a planet that reflects it or even just sits there and doesn't do anything at all. Anyway, I hope this long-winded explanation helped someone else.

Um... A can't be true because the passage clearly states that no dinosaurs lived ANYWHERE for the entire Mesozoic era.

Yes. But I don't know what to do about it.