I should have locked in on the conclusion: the bill has clearly created many jobs in this area.

if the conclusion is true, then is has to be true that plastonica would not have opened in the area if not for the incentives.

We can flip this: plastonica would have opened in this area regardless of the incentives.

This destroys the argument supporting the conclusion that the incentives is what is bringing jobs in.

I hate parallel flaw questions with my whole soul

"incongruous" was a popular word on this PT.

my thinking with (b) was that the causal arrow being switched around is the counter example. Can someone explain more clearly why (b) is wrong?

what if exercise is not a good thing in my universe lol

Caught in blind review!! Would have probably skipped this question on the test though. lol

Which PT is this passage from?

Which PT is this passage taken from?

thought this was a slam dunk...

How can the conclusion of an argument be ambiguous? That is so annoying IMO

Tangent: cherry picking populations in scientific studies and applying the results to the whole population is actually a huge problem that contributes to the gender data gap.

A book I read recently that discusses this- Invisible Women: Data Bias in a World Designed by Men (by Caroline Criado-Perez)

Helpful for understanding how flaws in experimental design contribute to many persistent problems for "understudied" groups.

Dirty question

Another way (B) does not weaken the argument: The stimulus says "many victims experienced hiccups" this does not imply that ALL victims experienced hiccups as a symptom. (B) is merely consistent with this and therefore cannot weaken the argument since the argument already stated that.

I crossed out (A), because I figured "despite appearances to the contrary" was not mentioned. So should I have just disregarded that part?

this question is my op

Really good explanation for why (B) is wrong.

I was between B and C and chose C because it discusses the symptoms (matching the conclusion) whereas B just discusses what leads to mental illness in the first place. The conclusion states that the symptoms of mental illness are not distributed evenly around the globe, not mental illnesses themselves.

got 27 wrong cause I didnt know what dearth meant, sigh

I hit #3 on the test and was like huh

It's not the wrong question. Hit play and the right questions starts

I think the target time means how long each passage (reading and answering questions) should take you. Since there are 4 passages and 35 minutes, it should take around 8 mins to read a passage and answer the questions. However, some passages are easier than others and take less time. Some passages have more questions attached and will take more time.

My general rule is to spend 4 mins reading the passage and around 4 to answer questions. 4 mins is a pretty big chunk to spend on reading the passage, but I found I am better equipped to breeze through the questions if I spend more time upfront and get a better understanding of the reading.

To be honest, I've been slowly studying for a while and one day it just clicked. Keep going!!

Time to hit some PTs. Good luck everyone!!!!!

JY, thanks for incorporating good vibes and humor into your lessons. Looking forward to killing this test.

For hard SA questions, diagram out the premises and conclusion to try and find missing link.

p1: renovate this year---> /stay $ next year

p2: /renovate this year--->renovate next year

c: stay $ this year--> /stay $ next year

Linked up: /renovate this year--->renovate next year--->renovate this year---> /stay $ next year

For the conclusion to make sense, we need to connect the ideas of (stay $ this year-->/stay $ next year). We are looking for something that says: if they stay within budget this year, they will not rennovate this year, AC (D).

That looks like: stay $ this year---> /renovate this year--->renovate next year--->renovate this year---> /stay $ next year

(E) is wrong because it flips what we need.

We cannot link up: /renovate this year-->stay $ this year to our conditional chain and get it to match the conclusion given in the stimulus.

I got way too granular with this. Needed to zoom out on the arguments as a whole vs just comparing sentence structure and grammar