@danielznelson160 Thanks for your comment! yes, my average score was 168-169. A several times I hit 170+. BR avrg was 170~172. That's why I feel super gray... and I want to know what I did wrong but since Asia test is a non-disclosed one, so I don't know how I did. :(

But I feel like when I am under pressure, my old habit comes out again since 162 was my last score from 2013. So I'm hesitant to retake on Dec... plus, bit worried about getting burned-out though it would be great to apply this year.

Thank you again for your advice :)

fingers crossed. Wish i had more fingers to cross lol

Everything will be just great!

It's like a worst-kind of Santa

Today?!?!?! seriously, this is not good for my heart lol

Ah.. the suspense is killing me!

Thank you guys! I purchased the course, now time to roll :)

I took the test in Seoul, Korea and I also had 3 LR sections haha

@3993 So do I. I don't know why though.. I was even sick on Tuesday and Wednesday, but I was like "Ok, now it's legit for me to rest." and I slept like an infant. And I just kept thinking to myself, "oh well. I will get better around Friday."And I do feel much better. I know I will probably meet some beasty questions but I also know if I stay calm, it will be just another question I need to see with fresh mind.

(yes i will be pollyana for this weekend haha)

Let's stay positive :D

We got this!!!

Oh and thank you JY for this :)

I don't think it's ok to use conditional for "generally" or "likely" sentences.

Conditional (A->B) means when there is A, B is there too. 100%.

You can think about our famous example that Jedi and force users.

'Every Jedi generally uses a force' is nothing like 'Every Jedi uses a force'.

'generally' or 'likely', 'some' 'most' 'might' 'may' 'could' ... these 'possibility' or 'probability' types are not 100%. So it's not working with conditionals.

Hope this helps :)

I thought this was more like a 'Your evidence sucks, therefore your conclusion also sucks' kind of thing...

Dominant view: petroleum formed from the fossilized remains of plants and animals deep in the earth's crust

Scientists' view: No it's not. it is formed from deep carbon deposits dating from the formation of the earth, not from living material.

Geologist's view: Scientists' view (or conclusion saying that Dominant view is wrong) is wrong. look at the presence in petroleum of biomarkers, it's a living organism.

Here, I thought Geologist's argument is flawed since it's saying that Scientists' conclusion is wrong based on their false evidence. So I thought "Ok. Scientists' argument sucks and it failed to demonstrated their own view, but still there is a chance their conclusion (Dominant View is wrong) is right."

In this case, D is pointing out that dominant view can be wrong since it also has this living organism stuff. (not from the fossilized remains of plants and animals, but from bacteria)

Is this too much a stretch...?

Hello!

I thought E was irrelevant with the argument since E was talking about clients behaviour and our argument was about whether the disclaimer offers legal protection for the company.

In case of A,

let's say for example, if there is a law saying that all tax preparation company should automatically add the disclaimer saying that the email should not be construed as advocating any violation, the company should add the disclaimer anyway for legal protection of other kind.

However our argument is saying that if the e-mail elsewhere suggests that the client do something illegal, then the disclaimer offers no legal protection -> So the disclaimer serves no purpose. So A is supporting the argument by saying that if that is not the case, the company doesn't need legal protection.

Even if company's clients knew how to illegally evade penalties and would try to do so, if company is out of that, it won't be their problem depending on the argument, I guess.

I also chose B, and here is what I thought.

The argument's conclusion is saying "that should be set as a uniform national speed limit for level, straight stretches of all such roadways."

So, I think the argument narrowed down the scope.

The answer choice B says "should apply uniformly across the nation" and I thought this was too much for our argument since our argument only talked about "such roadways".

So other roadways which have different actual average are not in the right scope, I think. As you mentioned, what if some of them is not on level, or not straight, or have different actual avrg speed? or maybe not even a high-speed roadways..?

Since the question is PSA type, if we have E in our premise,

the argument would go like

p1: raising speed limits to reflect the actual average speeds...reduces the accident rate.

p2: Any measure that reduces the rate of traffic accidents should be implemented.

p3: Since the actual average speed for... 120km/hr(75 miles/hr),

con: that should be set as a uniform national spped limit for level, straight stretches of all such roadways.

which would be valid.

Hope this helps!

This is what I thought when I did this question.

"Hormones produce growth in connective tissues rather than in muscle mass;this does not improve muscle strength"

With this part, when we negate the answer choice A, the argument can still stand.

It can still say, "Yeah, increase in the muscle mass does not produce the effect but growth in connective issue ALSO does not produce the effect. So athletes who need to improve muscle strength should not use the engineered food."

However, with the answer choice C, if there IS other advantage, then why not use the engineered food? Even if it doesn't produce improved muscle strength, it can still be useful for something else. So "should not use the engineered food" is too much to conclude.

Hope this can help!

Normally, I do it right away with the hardest one (imo) then if I got them all correct, I do them later to be sure. If I get them all correct the second time then it's ok i guess and it I don't, then watch explanation and do them again.

With the ones that I think I made a mistake - read the question wrong or sth like that - I make a note and do them later.

I think for the ones which gave you difficulties, I think you should do them later again to check if you got them in your heart.

Finally this weekend I can drink again! lol Good luck! Everything will be just fine. :)

totally agree. When I was reading passage A i was actually picturing all the games I've done and kept nodding psg by psg lol

It's so inspirational to see this kind of post not so long before the big day (now it's a week away!) :D Big congrats to you!

I think yes for the box with a no slash, since A->/B and A(-)/B both mean that if there is A, B can't be there. But in case of A(-)/B, if B is not there, A should be there, and if A is not there, B should be there so either one of them should be there. So A or B should be in, but both can't be in.

But in case of A->/B, if B is not there, it's a necessary condition, so nothing happens, it means it's ok for both A and B are out, I guess.

For me it depends, but usually I think for 'X must be here' rule, I draw it since it's more easy to spot on and doesn't take much time. For 'X cannot be here', it the remaining variables are two or three, I think I prefer to draw them.

I think in the 2nd prgh, the author argues that the complaint which stems from the belief that custom-made illustrations often misrepresent the facts is mistaken since for custom-made illustrations to be admissible as evidence, it is required to have a testimony on their accuracy by a medical expert. (line 25-29 conditional) So, guess it can be inferred that the author accepts of the accuracy of such testimony as C describes.

I was also having a hard time between D and E.

And now I can see why D is the answer.

The argument is basically saying that contemporary artists can not make many people to feel MORE aesthetically fulfilled since the works already there are capable of any taste imaginable.

well, 'capable of' doesn't necessarily mean that they 'are'. So there is still a chance that people might feel more aesthetically fulfilled with the contemporary artworks. And this is what D is saying.

In case of E, since the argument is talking about feeling 'more' fulfilled, the amount of aesthetic fulfillment derivable from any contemporary artwork doesn't matter. It can be 2, 20, 200.

People just can't feel it. And I think the argument is trying to justify this by saying that there are already so many great artworks. So 'without providing justification' part would be doubtful, too.

@gregoryalexanderdevine723 @jbhayer861 Thank you guys! I will see how it goes this week then decide! :)