Answer choice C contains a false dichotomy. Both A and the original argument have a true dichotomy, which is then rendered moot by the response. If it doesn't rain, we can just water the garden with a hose. Market share won't become an issue if consumers demand sound ecological practices.

I think this is the one time where taking a first pass at the questions puts you at a disadvantage. It's far better to try and make as much sense of A as you can, but to stay calm and immediately go read B before looking at the questions. I couldn't understand passage A and kind of freaked out... I had to go do the last passage, and come back at the end and race through this trying to make as much sense of it as I could. If you go in knowing that at least one author is aware of the passage of the other, it leaves open the possibility that they could clarify the other's position. That's exactly what happens here. Passage B helps to clear up questions that you may have after you read Passage A and seriously have no idea what they are talking about.

I have sort of a different reasoning for eliminating D, I think. If D) were to say: The desire to maintain social and academic success and self-esteem causes students to repress upsetting thoughts and feelings... that would be introducing reverse causality and it would be enough to explain the difference in the outcomes of the two groups. Those who have the desire to succeed repress, and that's why there's a correlation.

The problem with D), outside of the psychologist hypothesis angle, is that we are told that the desire to maintain social and academic success merely strengthens the tendency that's already there to repress upsetting thoughts and feelings. We don't really care about what is intensifying the relationship, we want the initial tendency to be explained, and we don't get that.

I have an approach to weaken/strengthen and also MSS which helped me on this question a LOT. I think that with the question types mentioned above, it is far better to compare the answer choices to each other, instead of to the stimulus. I give each answer choice a shot, unless it clearly does nothing, trying to surmise how it could weaken/strengthen or be most likely to be true in the case of MSS. Then if I have more than one left standing, I tear them down and see which one holds up the best. This is more conscious during BR, but timed it's simply me thinking which one does a better job.

When I was doing this question timed, I had it down to C and D... I've seen test writers pull similar stuff with twins in the past, so it actually made me like D, but C was also calling to me because it seemed to be directly contradicting the stimulus. But the stimulus says that watching yourself exercise can motivate you to exercise more, so C is a case of a grouped extreme, to use a Loophole expression. We don't care about those who were already highly motivated, it could have been one person. That left D, where the writers are clearly trying to get you to make a connection that there is something similar about watching yourself, and watching someone who looks identical to you. It doesn't have to weaken by a lot, but out of the options given, it is the best weakener, and stands up better to scrutiny than C.

OMG. I misread displeasing for pleasing in AC B. soijfs;aodifja;oigha;eowighae. I was staring at this question for like 15 minutes being like... how is B the right answer?? -_-

I respectfully disagree with you. I think this question is absolutely worth analyzing and I don't think this will cause people to make mistakes on logic games.

We can make reasonable inferences about the way this organization is set up. For example, we're clearly dealing with two sub-committees that are part of a general assembly, notice the word "the" instead of "a" in reference to the general assembly. The general assembly can't start about both 7 and 6, and I don't think that's an unreasonable inference to make.

If one group has a quorum (the minimum number of members needed for a meeting to begin), then the general assembly will begin at 6, if the other group has a quorum, then the general assembly will begin at 7. From this, it has to be the case that they can't both have quorums... it's entirely possible that the two groups have a lot of overlapping members, which again, on LR is a reasonable assumption to make. As noted by someone else, on LG things are usually more spelled out.

If you look at the other answer choices, they are much easier to eliminate... it's not reasonable to assume that these are the only two committees part of this larger general assembly which knocks out a few, and then there are some standard logic mistakes made by the others. That leaves only E.

A lot of the T-14 schools have LRAPs. I haven't done a lot of deep digging yet except at University of Michigan, which has a pretty comprehensive outline on their website. You don't have to spend the rest of your life paying off debt if you go to a top school.

Turning 32 this year!! Started studying for the test right before my 30th birthday.

Your logic seems correct to me, although I would forget about "enable" because it's not really a conditional indicator. It does change the meaning of the necessary condition, though.

Working on my backstroke will enable me to swim faster.

vs.

Working on my backstroke will make me swim faster.

For the first conditional, I know that if I work on my backstroke I will be enabled to swim faster, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I will, or will choose to do so. You could also replace enable with help and it would mean something similar. In the second conditional, I'm definitely swimming faster if I work on my backstroke.

In short, enable is part of the necessary condition because it affects the meaning, it's not a conditional indicator, but "will" introduces the necessary.

This is an SA question because the answer choice brings the the argument to validity. Most of the time for NA questions, the answer choices won't do that... they'll just be something that needs to be true in order for the argument to be true.

C isn’t correct because it has the relationship reversed. Greatness implies originality and far reaching influence, far reaching influence and originality aren’t sufficient to consider something to be great.

Another explanation for why E is wrong, it's pretty similar to JY's but I thought I'd put it out there in case it helps! Wrote this up during my BR.

So, I think this is wrong because it’s descriptively inaccurate. This is basically saying that the author thinks that the number and variety of great artworks affects the way that you take in and are fulfilled by contemporary art. But that’s not what the author is saying. The contemporary artists believe that contemporary art offers something new, something that would allow you to become more fulfilled than you would otherwise be, and the author is countering that by saying that there’s so much art that can meet any taste imaginable that contemporary art isn’t adding anything new. It’s not like all the other art is affecting how you see contemporary art.

I also think it's helpful when doing this question timed to not focus on why answer choices are wrong, but on why they're right. If true, D very clearly weakens. If you don't have access to the other art it doesn't matter whether or not it exists.

I worked through the truth tables and tried to understand your reasoning as best as I could, and I think you still need to have that law be the only law.

The conclusion that the campaign complied is irrelevant when the correct answer is so absolute. Say there's another law that says if a resident contributes, you need to register. If we're just looking at the law outlined in the stimulus, it's true that they wouldn't need to register according to that law, and they are complying with that law either way, but they would still need to register ultimately.

The only way for this to make sense, at least in my head, is if that law is the only law.

Please let me know if I'm missing something!

You can almost treat this question like a MSS. What most likely is true given stimulus?

If one lawyer was trying to screw them up, and the other was trying to help them, then the group in question was resistant to both.

I really overthought this one to my detriment!

I know this was a while ago, but to any one else who might be struggling with this!

First of all, I think that you're right, since it's MSS it doesn't absolutely have to be true, but it's something that can be reasonably inferred from what has been given. This is especially true given that we have an argument here instead of just a set of facts. I haven't tried diagramming it, and I didn't when I did this question but I can see where diagramming would get confusing very quickly. I don't think it's particularly helpful with this question.

We know that it's a fact that most young singers who sing demanding roles lose their voices. The author is simply saying: It's not for the reason that people think (not mature, not powerful enough) but because most young singers haven't had the proper training and therefore strain their vocal cords, hurting their careers.

Since we have to take the argument as fact and push out a reasonable inference we can conclude that the group in question (the singers who sing demanding roles and lose their voices) are doing so because they are straining their vocal cords.

This is a pretty straightforward "Link the Chains" argument.

/certain parts --> /swimming (take the contrapositive of the original statement)

Conclusion: /certain parts --> /survival advantage

In order to make the argument into a logical chain, you need to link /swimming --> /survival advantage, which is exactly what B is doing.

I'm so sorry you're going through this. I think there is a silver lining though, working through the worst case scenarios will help you get that much stronger regarding your ability to ace the test.

I've gone through phases where I was doing really great and then I had a score drop, I think it's part of the process. When there's a confidence shift it can feel devastating and like you'll never get it back. Just know that it won't last for ever and you'll be able to work your way out of it. My advice would be to stop taking PTs to preserve the ones you have and take it back a few steps. If I were in your position I would take a few days off to clear my head and to take care of myself. Then, do a thorough review of the PTs you took to find out where you went wrong, what's causing the score drop? Try to nail down a few concrete theories... are you doing a lot of panic reading, are you second guessing yourself and overanalyzing the answer choices? Depending on how much time I had until the exam, I would probably take a PT untimed, just to take the timing out of the equation and to boost my confidence. Then I would do an old PT timed before attempting a fresh one. Whenever I have a confidence crisis my first move is to remove the timing element, taking it back a step helps to reassure myself that I'm on the right track and that my fundamentals are solid.

The worst thing you can do is panic and just start taking a bunch of PTs. Make sure to take the time to take care of yourself, especially if you're sick. That can go a long way to get yourself back on track, and it's just good for life in general! Take a couple of deep breaths, you've got this and it'll be okay.

It can absolutely present itself in the contrapositive because they’re logically equivalent statements. This happens all the time, particularly with PSA and SA questions.

To use your example:

Jonah ran a marathon today, so I can conclude that he will be tired afterward.

Correct answer: If one isn’t tired, then they didn’t run a marathon.

Thanks for the great advice @davemorehart98305-1 ! I’m currently averaging -2 to -3 on games because I run out of time for the last few questions, it’s so aggravating. I keep hoping that I’ll get faster the more games I do, but I wonder if I’m losing time because I’m not instinctual enough on the setup. I often can’t decide fast enough when to go to the questions and when to figure stuff out before hand. (I know a lot of times it’s a little of both.) I feel like when I try and figure stuff out beforehand I run out of time, and when I try to go straight to the questions without figuring out too much, I’ve missed a major inference and then it takes me too long. The idea of ‘partial splitting’ is a great one!

I noticed today that there’s also something very mentally draining about games that the other 2 sections don’t seem to have… like it requires way more concentration that I can’t always muster. Plus there’s always the panic that sets in that tends to snowball when I can’t answer a question because I’m missing an inference.

I read slowly. (Or what feels slow to me.) It’s far better to read something once and understand it than to panic read something quickly 5 times and not fully comprehend. I also give myself the space to re-read something if it’s just not clicking. Sometimes I’ll re-read a paragraph several times if it’s complex. Every passage has 3 or 4 big ideas, make sure you understand what they are as well as the general flow and the structure. That understanding should come naturally if you read carefully and with a genuine curiosity. I like to think of every passage as a chance to learn something new about the world! Regardless of the subject, approaching RC with interest is a good way to stay focused and engaged.

I'm scoring similarly, and I think it's worth it. It's important to understand why those tough questions keep tripping you up if your ultimate goal is -0.

I would do a thorough PR review like anything else. Go through the section question by question and try to understand where you could have saved time that could have been devoted to the tougher questions. When you get to the questions you got wrong, evaluate. Why are the tougher questions rated the way they are...what makes them more challenging? Is it tricky wording, is it about a section in the passage that's particularly difficult to understand? Just recently I learned something by getting a tough question wrong, because I didn't understand the difference between refuting a claim, and arguing that someone's claim is incomplete.

Try different strategies... one thing I'm considering doing is skipping like I would for LR. Since I don't seem to have problems re-familiarizing myself with the passage when I come back to it, I'm going to only answer the questions that I'm 100% certain about, and then save the 3 or 4 questions that gave me trouble until the end.

This is something that took me a while to straighten out, but my understanding is that “except” is not a traditional group 3 indicator. It’s a carve out. So, if the perhaps wasn’t there B would be correct. Because it’s an exception to the rule, if we know the exception is present, the rule doesn’t apply.

@mattwhitworth56724 sorry I never replied to your post! In case you're still curious, something about the concept of the passage only having 3 or 4 big ideas, and everything else being detail really stuck with me. I really liked their framework approach as well, although currently my approach which has gotten me into the -0 to -2 scoring range has thrown all methods out the window haha. I think @leechrissal192 hit the nail on the head. For me, it's literally about comprehension and pretty much nothing else. I read at what I think is a glacial pace and it's actually not that slow. I think we do way more panic reading than we realize, so I really slow down and I almost always end up with extra time at the end of the section. I'll even go back and re-read a paragraph 3 or 4 times if it's really confusing me and I don't understand it. I realized that if you truly understand what the author is saying, the questions become pretty easy and straightforward.