Isn't AC B also wrong because the stimulus tells us that the garbage truck driver could have avoided the accident if they reacted more quickly? I feel like this is a reasonable assumption (not just JY's standard of care explanation). #help

mjmonte17- I had the exact same order as you and have the exact feelings as you for each section. I am hoping to god I did not blow up on that RC section- the last passage on women labor law I had 6 minutes for.

Thanks keets I am going to break that bad habit. I know that excelling under timed conditions is not something that just magically happens and needs to be learned from practice.

Rosenkranz- just out of curiousity (I know its different from person to person), but how long did that jump from low 160s to mid 160s take you using the confidence approach?

Hoping someone could provide insight here:

If the application component of the stimulus says that the catalog descriptions were not stated as opinions (implicitly or explicitly) would that change our approach to this question? My instinct says no because we are saying that Healy is guilty of misrepresentation (GM) and the principle says that if the misrepresentation is deliberate (DM) then they are guilty (GM; so DM -> GM) and we are clearing missing the occurrence of DM.

Thanks- #help

Appreciate the feedback Riley. Your AMA was extremely helpful by the way. I have adopted mantras like you did but at the question type level (for each question type) for LR and my RC strategy for typing in a separate word doc I got from your AMA. Honestly the hardest thing for me to replicate is your time aggression- I have not been able to do 25 questions in 30 minutes let alone 25. I really struggle with time and usually add 5 minutes on the clock to each section- when I do that I usually score high 160s/low 170s but without I am around 158-162 (my target score is 165). RC is what kills me (usually -7 to -9).

I mapped elitist off to the side for this question and considering it part of the domain of discourse. Did any 7sagers include elitist in their conditional logic chain? #help

Can someone please go into more depth as to why 26D is wrong. Are we not learning from recent research origins of fallacious reasoning- for example, the fact that people ignore information that runs counter to our pre-conceived beliefs of facts. Thank you!! #help

Can someone explain how critical and irreverant approach to language (Latin American poetry) means liberal and forward thinking and how Spanish poets being more accepting means conservative. I tried to understand this sentence in the context of the end of P1 (I am citing above the first sentence of P2) and it still did not make any sense to me. Can some provide some insight here. Thank you #help.

Is 21E trying to attack the idea of consensus for clinical equipoise? I chose this and switched to A on BR, but I want to make sure I eliminate E for the right reason. I think the idea is that if you do not have a strong opinion then perhaps there is consensus thus negating the possibility of clinical equipoise? Having said that, just because opinions are not strong does not mean differences of opinion are not possible.

Did anybody else have this same thought process? Thanks- #help

I had problems with question 5 for AC E. On lines 6-8 it says that forest ecosystems are dependent on periodic fires for renewal. Would this not suggest that are helping control wildlife populations or I am guessing that is too big of a stretch?#help

So I got this question right, but I spent a lot of time thinking about AC A.

Can someone please provide more insight as to why A is wrong? I am seeing comments below stating that AC A is wrong because it negates the sufficient condition but I do not see any conditional logic in the answer choice. The word "for" is present which is sometimes used to introduce a premise and the clause of the sentence before the "for" indicates a conclusion or sub-conclusion, but "for" in this case is just used a modifier.

Why could I not modify the interpretation of AC A as: denies grant -> No practical concerns which is "sort-of" the contrapositive to the stimulus (I say sort of because denying the grant cannot really be concluded from no obligation to promote research as per stimulus).

If anything I would think the reason why AC A is wrong is because denying the grant is to strong of an action to deduce from no obligation to promote, but I think AC E has the same problem.

AC E says that this research with practical concerns is funded, but can we draw from the fact that just because there is an obligation to promote the research that it necessarily has to be funded?

Any insights would be greatly appreciated here- ultimately I want to see why AC A is wrong; I chose E on intuition and I'm not sure if the explanations provided by JY and those below conclusively tell us that AC A is wrong and E is right (I am likely missing something blatantly obvious so please let me know). Thank you!#help

Is this negation of an assumption technique (very similar to NA questions) a reliable approach to weakening and flaw questions or is this an anomaly? #help.

We are told that the number of book titles published has quadrupled since TV available. When TV came out the number of books sold spiked up and rose at a decreasing rate since that point. Also library circulation has been flat or going down in recent years. Correct AC says that availability of TV does not always cause a decline in annual number of books published (not happening right now) or number of books sold (it is currently increasing at a decreasing rate). AC A- we know nothing about the population size fluctuation. AC B- usually? Only in recent times is what we can conclude. AC C- again increasing at a decreasing rate (also we know nothing about the number of book publishers there are- only about the number of books published). AC E- what about libraries and do we know this based on a mere correlation?

Argument says that those who lost the most weight got more calories from protein vs. carbs (high protein low carb diet) and ate biggest meal early. Therefore, if you follow these 2 things you will for sure lose weight. AC A- tricky because says make you feel fuller by eating more carbs but maybe in light of that you are still not losing the most weight. AC B- first of a few is a small sample. Secondly, significant does not equal most. AC C- does not help- it wants to assume a binary cut of those with high protein low carb exercise more and that why they are losing more weight than the people with not that diet losing less weight and not working out (cannot assume this based on AC provided). AC D- correct scope and result is contradictory to stimulus- yes this is right. AC E- so snacking causes those with late meals to gain more weight- what diet are they on? And those snacking less what diet are they on?

You are given some correlation relationships and conclude a causation relationship. The correct AC here attacks the correlation relationship between ideas A and B namely being easily angry and have permanently high blood pressure. The assumption in these kinds of arguments is that correlation implies causation so being easily angry causes high blood pressure. The correct AC is telling us that the physical effects of high blood pressure causes you to be easily angry. This is the only AC that does require us to make any additional assumptions.

AC E is clearly right, but I fell for AC D. I thought that maybe being obnoxious to begin will cause someone to acquire expensive tastes.

First off, I clearly was appealed to this AC by bias which is not good. However, more fundamentally, this AC is pretty adamant in its wording- it says it mistakes cause and effect rather than saying it might be the case that there is this error or there is a possibility etc.

Can anyone else help me eliminate AC D (beyond the reasoning that the argument lists only negative consequences and omits positive ones thus making AC E right)? #help

AC A- forces us to assume that 25 and younger are most likely to buy when we are essentially told that it is most likely the case thats its 46-55 year olds. AC B- Forces us to assume that young adult characters in TV means more young adults watching therefore young adults buying- what a stretch, AC C- TV show renewal based on 25 and younger viewship- what about their buying habits? AC D- Finally address buying habits which is what we need- target the people you have a shot with- if 46 and 55 year olds are buying, TV ads are not going to help their decision according to this AC. AC E- who cares about print media

Question- if AC C explicitly stated that this applied to a front-load washing machine (which it does not in this case)- would that make it a necessary assumption #help

Thanks so much for the comment! Candidly I do not use the memory method rigorously- would be good to get your insight here. I read the passage in about 3:30 and maybe spend 10 seconds mentally threading the low resolution summaries of each paragraph together to get a overall main point (I do not do the turn the page over thing- I know this is a practice exercise not to be done on test day but I figure if I can't do it on test day don't do it during prep).

Can you share insights as to what these 200 pages of notes are? Is it your observations of your reading tendencies in general or is it passage specific notes of low res, tone etc?

I do 2 timed sections a night during the week and I take Friday's off. Right now the timed sections I am doing are 1 RC (so 4 passages) and LG each and then a PT on the weekend which I blind review on the weekend.

Also, 3 questions for you: 1) What have you found is the best way for you refer back to the passage (on a granular level beyond low res etc.)? 2) What are your active reading techniques (you alluded to tone, structure and purpose- is there anything else and how do you make a mental or written note of these?)? 3) What do you write down on the passage itself?

Thanks so much!

Can someone please explain if C is a part to whole flaw and even if it is, can someone explain why its not really important to the argument?

The error that A present makes 100 percent sense to me and is clearly the main flaw, but the language of the first sentence kind of indicates a part to whole relationship (although not clean cut like each person thinks in self-interest therefore government thinks in self-interest- as I am typing this I am thinking to that maybe it had to say that each government member thinks of their own self-interest therefore the government as a whole thinks of their self-interest?).

Thanks #help

This question made me think about the following: for strengthening questions in general, if you introduce a new independent premise that does not necessarily link up to the premises in your existing argument, would it not then be a strengthening AC? I guess not because it does not improve the support relationship between your existing premise or premises with the conclusion, but I wanted to get a second opinion.

I have always operated under the assumption that you can strengthen an argument in 4 ways: (1) reclarify existing premises and make them more relevant, (2) expose assumption and deem it true, (3) block alternative explanations for a phenomenon and (4) introduce new premises- perhaps (4) is wrong.

Thanks! #help

If AC D was flipped around to say that any rock music that exists Jackie listens to it- would that make AC D correct?

My thought is no because I feel it is an independent reason to support the conclusion that Jackie will like C's album rather than addressing the similarities between M's music and C's new album which is given to us in the premises. #help

Can someone please explain why 25A is not supported? Thanks so much. #help

I was looking for an AC that said that in the past books of intrinsic value were profitable but that was not there. My issues with AC Bis that you have to equate quality and intrinsic value which did not occur to me- based on my current understanding of the question I can only get to AC B by POE. Can some provide more insight here? #help

I chose AC B for this- If that AC said fails to consider that automobile accident fatality rates that occur at high speeds is greater than low speed limit areas would that weaken the argument?

I am not sure if it would because perhaps this is a restatement of the implicit premise JY illustrated with the 1% and 5% example or if a rate of change is necessary (ie. accident fatality rates in high speed areas are going at a faster rate than in the lower speed areas).