I just got wrecked by 79 yesterday, it happens. Your work before shows what you know, that's the more important thing.

I'm taking tests through to Friday. Good points about not letting it ruin your confidence...I'm just looking at it as a tune up to work on specific things.

Great ideas, thanks everyone!

I like to go through the types of questions that I got wrong on my PT and hit some of the drilling materials at the end of the CC for those question types.

I chose E because I saw that "but" statement paraphrased there as a subconclusion/major premise. Did I misidentify, or would the answer choice say "subsidiary conclusion" if it was a premise in support of a subconclusion? I feel like I've seen questions that do that.

I've been going through the drilling materials at the end of the curriculum and just doing sets of 25+ of these questions in a row and blind reviewing them. Just focusing in on and repeating the type of thinking necessary for NA questions has helped.

I had literally no idea where to go with this one.

@nbanton11495 I'm scoring in a similar range as you (though usually my LG has been the bigger problem). One thing that helped with RC was taking a couple days to do several sections of it. It was painful, but my usual -7ish has been more like -4 on the last few tests. A (really) quick jog in the morning has also helped me get rid of some of the jitters and not mess up on the stuff that I know (not sure if that's happening to you at all.)

I took 73 yesterday and had a very similar experience, much worse than my recent tests and both LR sections were especially bad. I don't know what it was with that test; I think I had issues with the grammar for some reason, and I chalked some of it up to anxiety as well. Something about it just really didn't click...

This is super helpful, thank you @rgiggi3304 and @gregoryalexanderdevine723 !

I love this thread!

I've found that everything goes a little better for me when I'm sure about the stuff that I get to and worry less about getting to everything; in other words, if I go about a section with a plan to be solid on 20ish questions and be alright with not getting to the rest, I'm less likely to have one or more disaster sections on the test. The first page or two of a section can be a big determiner for me--if I'm methodical about how I go through those questions and decide that I won't be frustrated by how much time has passed, sections tend to go a lot better than when I rush through these and make sloppy mistakes because I'm worried about making it to the "low hanging fruit" that may or may not be located in question #24. For me, the start sets the tone, and generally that tone leads to more time for the rest of the section anyway.

@jalee479 I'm in a similar position--it's so frustrating! It's usually one or two bad sections that's keeping me out of the 170s, and it'll be a different section on every test...

I've also found that thinking about "ultimate potential" has mostly lead me to frustration. Yes, I have a goal, but I've found that my mental health has been a lot better when I focus on the more immediate things (like pacing and consistency with certain types of questions and sections.) For me, it's all about tuning up individual sections and question types, and perfecting the smaller things one at a time just feels like a more attainable goal than a perfect score at this point.

Do RRE questions require assumptions sometimes? I was between C and E and went with E because I was uncomfortable assuming that the "slight" increase in temperature and humidity would necessarily mean that pests would become established--maybe it would still be too cold and dry for them. (I now see that E also requires assumptions--more of them, in fact...)

Thank you so much, everyone! These are great ideas!

This one threw me off because I didn't recognize "divinely inspired" as a substitute phrase for "religious" (or as a sufficient condition implying that it is religious). How frequently can we expect to see a substitution like this in questions where the flaw is two different meanings of the same word?

I'm not seeing how this argument includes a premise about "individual scientists" as B says--to me it seems to be talking about scientists as a general group rather than about individuals. Does anyone have insight as to what I'm missing here?

I'm still not understanding why B and D are wrong:

For B, since it is given that the seeds won't germinate unless there is some exposure to the sun, why isn't it most strongly supported that the seeds that never come to the surface through plowing will not grow, thus leading to fewer pigweeds than a field that is plowed? There's always the chance that the "plowing at night" occurs right before the sunrise, allowing for seeds somehow left on the surface to get sun exposure, right?

Likewise for D, it is stated that the seeds need to be redeposited under the surface in order to grow---I realize that this contradicts with B, but doesn't that statement mean that a seed left on the surface with prolonged sun exposure cannot grow?

How is everyone else thinking this one out?