this is exactly how I processed that AC

AKA on the last day of the year, you have what's still available (the coal you've mined throughout the year but haven't used up - your surplus.) in 1991, that amount was considerably lower than was the remaining surplus in 1990. So if your surplus is lower in 91 than in 90, it means you must've consumed more.

I now understand how B is a relevant flaw, but I got this one incorrect because I focused on the use of the word "normal." The stim was talking about administering a treatment for a disease, in which I then assumed that a body with the disease would in some aspect be NOT normal. Thus, if its premise for concluding that a treatment shouldn’t be administered is bc of the negative side effects for a "Normal" body, I thought, 'well, that doesn't tell us anything, because it wouldn't be administered on a normal body. it'd be on a body with the disease.'

This was my exact thought process. #help

#feedback I understand how producing smoke might not have been their primary intention, but the stim just says "they probably did something." Meaning, even if the smoke wasn't their first goal, what's to have stopped them from in fact preserving the meat through smoke regardless?

Hey! So I'm pretty sure that the scaled score you receive for a particular PT depends on how others did when they took the actual test, meaning that minus X number of questions doesn't automatically equate to a single specific score (aka, getting a raw score of 52 questions correct wont always result in the same scaled score across PTs). For example, getting 52 correct might give you a 156 on the June 1998 test, the same 52 correct might earn you a 158 on the December 2000 PT. It all varies depending on the exam

(someone correct me if i'm wrong)

The bubbles are super helpful when reviewing performance on PTs, but having them for Drills would be awesome, since Drills are where most of the work and progress is done

In answer choice D, doesn't the phrase "fails to exclude" mean the author did in fact include the possibility that there might be more legit evidence? In which case, the author would eliminate grounds for criticism? It was the wording of those words that got me to overthink and therefore eliminate option D #help

I had the exact same thought process

#help What clue-ins did this question have to let us know that they were looking for a different type of flaw than the three-link structure of Psycho → AS →Training? Because that's the structure I was looking to be replicated in the answer choices (which obviously, there was none). So is there anything in the question itself that would have hinted to looking for a different flaw? Or do we just have to run through the answer choices, see there's no similar conditional chains, and then attempt to identify what other flaw it could be?

In some of the Question examples (the ones that don't obviously include the use of the word "assumption," "inference," "strengthen", etc) I'm sometimes confusing MBT stems with SA stems. Anyone have any tricks for differentiating the two? #help