and then I lose my cool even more once I recognize im losing my cool. nasty cycle.

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 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 would quickly read all AC. Once in a blue moon, a "better" answer choice will pop out at me and I am grateful to have read them all vs. going with my initial gut.

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

Which PT is this passage from?

Which PT is this passage taken from?

One of my favorite's

thought this was a slam dunk...

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

Really good explanation for why (B) is wrong.

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

"incongruous" was a popular word on this PT.

Same. I dont see how it isn't an endorsement either. Many things in the last paragraph seem to point to the author's endorsement.

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.

When I'm trying to weaken an argument, I focus on weakening the claim the conclusion is making. The conclusion states that social inertia is a more powerful determinant of human behavior than the desire for comfort or safety. I start to attack the conclusion by asking "what if something else is a more powerful determinant of human behavior, like job security?" then I try to match my hypothesis (broadly) to the AC. In this case, my alt hypoth was the correct answer. But in other cases a broad alt hypothesis can map onto a different AC. I think you might be focusing on undermining the premises vs locking in on what the conclusion is saying?

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

I hate parallel flaw questions with my whole soul

this question is my op

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!!

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

I would also like feedback on this.