Hi! As someone who really benefited from the wrong answer journal while studying, I also approached it this way. I think the key piece for me was going back to review the notes. By reviewing them I was able to note patterns in the types of errors that I was making. Good luck!

found the answer:

parallel reasoning isn't usually flawed but parallel flaw always is

https://www.thinkinglsat.com/articles/how-to-solve-parallel-questions

I had not noticed this before, but if the question stem doesn't mention "flawed parallel reasoning" is it safe to assume that the reasoning is valid? #help

.

"at least a few" = some

Figured it out! In case anyone else is curious, PowerScore had a really great explanation:

https://forum.powerscore.com/viewtopic.php?f=513&t=3722

same #help

I'm having a hard time following along with the conditional logic. The way it's diagrammed in the video, it says the premise 1 is : JPM--> KLE and premise 2: JPB. The conclusion is KLE and FP. Then it says the missing premise is JPM--> FP. Wouldn't this make the premise KLE some FP? where did the "and" come from? #help

Question 23 was incredibly hard for me. I kept getting tripped up on what the term "treated" was referring to. I was stuck between it meaning treated by X or treated by introducing both the prey and the predator. How did you figure it out? #help

The advice I have gotten is to review those questions that you get correct, but you didn't feel 100% confident about under timed conditions.

The "most" threw me off. Why is it not relevant when diagramming out this stimulus? #help

This one really threw me for a loop. I think it's because I've been working on weakening questions where anytime you run into a correlation equals causation stimulus, you have to see the big red flag. But I now see that C is weak enough to not force us into a statement that declares that a correlation is equal to causation.

I'm confused about the zoom level regarding highway car accidents. I found it unclear whether the stimulus was talking about highway car accidents in the whole country, state, city, or specific area within any of the previously mentioned sections. I'm reading the comments below and a lot of people mention eliminating B because it's not the correct zoom level. I didn't see a zoom level specified in the stimulus. Additionally, what zoom level is B referring to when it says "in the area"? #help

Also, why is E correct? The author only spent a line in the first paragraph talking about why the author chose Tucker as their main subject. That doesn't seem like enough to say it was the main point of writing this passage. #help

Edit: I meant answer choice B NOT answer choice C

The wording for C is very confusing. I'm struggling to see how the "main points" was in reference to the biography. I thought the "main points" was in reference to the study. I thought it was the latter and felt confident in selecting C as my answer choice #help

Just kidding, I figured it out. So C is talking about all employees and we cannot confirm that all employees carry trade secrets with them. For example, I worked retail in college. I had no trade secrets to hold based on my employment at company X. It could be that only 1% of employees at company X (e.g. executive directors) hold trade secrets.

Question 6

In the text it implies that it's hard for a worker to get rid of their information they have learned at their previous job and that information can subconsciously make its way into one's daily decisions at the new job. Hence, I thought C was the correct answer. Would greatly appreciate understanding why C is incorrect #help

For question two, I was between C and E and ended up going with E. I couldn't find the answer to the question posed on answer C (although now I see it). However, for answer choice E, I thought the answer to the question was that radiocarbon dating not only allows you to study past earthquakes but also gives you, "hints about the likelihood and location of FUTURE earthquakes." Why is this incorrect? #help

When speaking about a prediction does that just mean an assumption? #help

Based on the conclusion, does it imply that the lie detector has to react to all physical conditions? #help

under time, I somehow skipped over the part that says "free installation" :(

Other People's Argument:

Highway speed limits should be increased to reflect the actual average speeds of highway drivers (10 to 20% higher than posted limits)

Hypothetical:

Posted Limit: 65mph Actual Average Speed: 72mph (10% increase

from posted limit)

C: Such increase would decrease highway safety

P: Past experiences show that setting it to 72mph would result in even higher average speeds (e.g. another 10% increase to 79mph)

P: 51% or more of violators of speed limits (e.g Bob) would obey higher speed limit (i.e. 72mph)

P: Almost 100% of drivers who obey current speed limits (e.g. Margaret) would likely increase their speed

The last sentence in this stimulus was a bit confusing because of how vague it was. Does it mean that people like Margaret who've always obeyed the current speed limits will increase their speed to the new posted limit or will increase their speed above the new posted limit? Since this wasn't explicitly stated, I ended up eliminating B.

Clarification on this would be much appreciated. #help

E really threw me for a loop:( Isn't it an attack on the critic? what if his past reviews have been unreliable but this one particular one is reliable? #help

Could we also say that the industrialists is committing the same flaw that they're accusing the residents of? #help