@jwn1060 I know this an old comment, but some tutors outside 7sage do teach these as Stn questions! I have had no problem solving them as thus

The impetus to getting this question right is realizing that the two start times are mutually exclusive (aka you can't begin both at 6p and 7p). After that, it is very simple diagramming and following the arrows through. All the other answer choices go against the arrows, aka flip without negating, aka confuse sufficiency with necessity.

We know that these are events are mutually exclusive (aka can only have one and not the other) because you cannot begin at 7p if you already began at 6p. We are also able to assume that this is the same general assembly.

permissible assumption (aka allowing for mutual exclusivity): 6p --> ~7p, and 7p --> ~6p

Premise 1: SCQ --> 6p --> ~7p --> ~ACQ

Premise 2: ACQ --> 7p --> ~6p --> ~SCQ

A: ~6p --> ACQ (goes against premise 2 arrows)

B: ~SCQ --> ACQ (goes against premise 2 arrows)

C: 6p --> SCQ (easiest to elim bc don't need to assume mutual exclusivity, basic false contrapositive of premise 1)

D: ~7p --> SCQ (goes against premise 1 arrows)

E: SCQ --> ~ACQ (correct, follows arrows of premise 1 perfectly through)

I think the easiest way to understand this is to translate "no guarantee of success" to "not sufficient for success". Fremont states a background in oil is a necessary condition (viable candidate --> background in oil) and then the error of Galindo becomes apparently because he is legitimately misinterpreting Fremont's placement. Trying to diagram Galindo's arg was proving to be a Herculanean effort for me, but seeing that "no guarantee" is a reference to sufficiency cleared this up quickly for me. I will keep looking for more equivalencies like these as I solve.

@Bobby68 i am not sure and that's why i asked bc i would really hate to become reliant on it and then not have it on test day and that to create a minor panic lol, i am guessing that we prob will have it if its available, but idk if i want to waste the time changing it

@Bobby68 does anyone know if even those of us without accesibility accomodations will be able to change the color on test day? i really like it just because it makes it more interesting to my brain, but i don't want to study this way only to have it be different (& thus boring) on test day

the TLDR on explaining D is that we're trading on the concept of tearing down the concert hall, and D makes a reality in which the respondents already know that the hall isn't going to be torn down bc they already know a new one is being built. The concert goers don't want it to be torn down, but they don't care about it being moved + improved.

Deepak Chopra's abundance meditation on Spotify = lifechanging

@ionicinstinct Non-auditory learners rise up

i got the same exact passages as an earlier drill so this what somewhat useless because i remembered all the answers

@Gregmjr Interesting observation! My goal score is a 175 and both of my suggested passages are 5 star passages with above 3 star questions. I also have been acing all the other sections so far so maybe that is a part of it. Didn't do as hot on this one though...

the easiest way to eliminate D is that that particular rock being from the Moon instead of Mars doesn't necessarily mean that the LHB was only confined to the Earth-Moon system. It is already described as being rare to have that kind of sample and doesn't say that the only way the rock got to Earth was through the LHB. Even if the rock was re-classified to have come from the Moon, that still doesn't mean the rock came from the result of the LHB, and there is still a chance that the LHB impacted other internal solar system bodies. Essentially, the rock actually being from the Moon doesn't preclude the LHB from impacting other bodies.

D, in comparison, shows quite strong proof of similar "test subject" experiencing different results. Mars is a similar size, relatively close to Earth, has moons etc. D is obviously not a perfect answer, but it is a lot stronger answer.

No way i got a 5/5 on these after getting like ever single NA question wrong before this

@yelenarosario I am not entirely sure if this is correct, but I believe that the first "without" is modifying "power" and therefore isn't working to connect any one idea to another in the prompt but instead describes the type of power one can wield when they can lift Thor's hammer. Lmk if this doesn't make sense!

I absolutely love this concept and I think is a great tool for understanding complex information, but I also see how it could create assumptions for me that would skew my test taking. How do we use this technique without it in turn hindering us?