@silkiestangel850 Thank you so much for writing such a thoughtful comment; this is really helpful. You're right; I am just fooling myself. I need to remove the judgment factor regarding easier v more difficult qs and really just sit with these qs for a long time until they legitimately click.

& it's also a good pt that viewing them as minor mistakes is not helpful; I need to see them as big errors that require a great deal of attention.

This reframing is super helpful!! We'll see how it goes !

On question 1, I felt like E was just a bit too strong compared to B; E says that "digital publishing WILL transform the economics" when all the passage reallyyyyy stated (at most) was that it is LIKELY to change the economics of the business.

Throughout both the RC and LR curriculum, I feel like the emphasis on subtle changes of wording/strength are really emphasized, and I did not feel comfortable with E as a result. While the negative economic changes are a relatively small part of the passage, they are definitely present, and I would argue practically to the same extent as the point about creating competitive pressures to pay authors more.

I agree w/JY that the "social factor" aspect is not totally present, but to me it just felt like the change from "likely" to "will" was a bigger deal... did anyone else have this problem/could explain how they picked between these two A. choices??? This was the only Q I ended up missing on this entire RC section and I tend to have a lot of issues w MP qs in general; would love anyone's input.

I guess ultimately maybe my weighing was wrong --- referencing "social factors" when those are unidentifiable is perhaps a bigger deal than altering the strength of a statement.....

i struggled with this question a bit because of the word "imminent." If the cavity is in "imminent danger," doesn't that mean that it is still only potentially harmful? since imminent is technically "potentially harmful," ie. it hasn't happened yet, and yet this "imminent" condition merits the use of a "definitely harmful" procedure.

What is the issue here -- is it because imminent is stronger than potentially harmful???

yes!! i also feel like anytime 'blending' was mentioned, it was solely in the interest of furthering a social message as the ultimate goal

When did they get rid of it? I didn't know that!!!!

this is my question as well, especially since I eliminated this answer because I felt like it did not describe "the position of one faction" at all, and this is moreso what the passage was focused on in my eyes.

Does the same rule go for paragraph breaks? I've been a bit confused as to how we might be able to do those on the test itself; ie. if we should use a highlight for it or take mental note of it as well.

you have to refresh a few times when this happens

u literalllllyyy have to pay for it. so true. i laughed,

you can change it to unlimited time (or more than 100% time)

as a history & poli sci major i ate up the bit about the authoritarian regime

"But it doesn't answer the question. We have not weakened the argument. We’ve merely contradicted the conclusion. To conflate one of these for the other is itself a commonly recurring flaw on the test."

The question stem asks us to undermine the reasoning of the argument, which is not accomplished by merely contradicting the conclusion. In order to weaken the reasoning, we need to engage with the support structure, ie. the relationship between the premises and the conclusion

lol i had a question but then after i commented i figured it out and now i can't delete this comment

thank you!! this was helpful.

why not LA ←s→ AA

agreed #feedback

this is exactly what i was thinking - I believe we can given that in the example with "since" as a support relationship (tigers), the sentence could have included "because" in its place and would relay the same argument.

i.e. "Since tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people, not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet."

"Because tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people, not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet."

I think i realize why this is the case - it's contextual - they realized that the authoritarian regime is dispensable and that is why they came to support democracy -

Also lookign for one!

I would love to join! In the NYC area but would love to stay in touch