Hi! I have been at this plateau for the last ~6 months. In the last 9 practice tests I've taken, only 3 have been in the 170s. How do I move past this barrier when I feel confident abt questions during the test? Are there recommended daily study routines? I fluctuate between getting -2 and -5 wrong on an LR section and I would just love to get consistent.
Please help. My goal is mid -170s
This one tripped me up bc a lot of the NA questions I've done in recent history have the AC as the NA that links the first conditional statement to the second conditional statement (this second conditional being the conclusion).
I now see why AC B is correct via the negation technique. It just wasn't the answer I predicted before heading to the ACs, especially because it doesn't refer back to the first conditional statement (-most parties subject abide willingly -> law futile).
I read "Thus, there can be no comprehensive international solution to the problem of pollution, since few nations would willingly give up their power over their own industries" in its entirety as the conclusion. Was that wrong?
Should I have been tipped off to look for this more simplistic NA (AC B) once I couldn't find the NA linking the two conditional statements? Please advise.
stressed bc this one was far worse score than my usual average, particularly section 4 (LR). was it unusually bad for anyone else (like ~my diagnostic score from a year ago)? section 1 and 2 were normal scores. 3 and 4 far lower sectional average.
how to address this outcome via studying methods?
Hi! When I first started studying I took most recent ptests within the 150s and worked backwards. as i get closer to the test I have been redoing those with the 150s with mixed results. which ptests should I take closest to the real thing to get me prepared?
and does anyone have a recommended list of ptests to take leading up (ex. varied as ptests 149, 154, 132, 147, etc. )? Thank you!!
@7Sage Tutor Hi! Im confused at this point in your explanation: "So the argument is treating the inability to distinguish homophones as a symptom of a deeper problem: the lack of semantic and grammatical understanding." I similarly read "as a consequence..." to indicate an embedded conditional as the conclusion (/homophones → (/recognize semantics → /accurately translate) and accurately translate -> homophones). How do we know the inability to distinguish homophones is a symptom of the problem (/accurate translate -> /homophones)?
hi ! can i ask how you went up from the -3/-4 plateau to the -0/-2 level?
m&m
hi! please see question above? ive been doing slow work-throughs of LR sections, reviewing the questions I get wrong thoroughly (or what i think is thorough--identifying why wrong ACs are wrong, why the rigjt one is right). ive started to incorporate time, yet i am still in the same place of usually getting -3 to -4 wrong. i know it doesnt feel drastically different, yet i have been at this plateau for the past 3/4 months. I don't want to believe that I can't get better!! is there something I'm missing?
i've done some drills based on identified weaknesses (strengthen/weaken/NA). but i don't feel as though there are types that I can identify as consistently missed.
Is this a specific type of NA? So that I can drill! It feels more convoluted than others.