On my last 5 practice tests, I've scored 176, 169, 166, 174, and 168 (least to most recent). Basically, I haven't really seen consistent improvement, and it's been hard for me to break out of the high 160s.
Does anyone have tips on how to make the most of the 10 minute break and/or build stamina? I need to score 170+ on my April exam. Thanks!
Thank you so much for the written explanations (I think they're a new feature???). For some reason, they're usually clearer to me than the videos and take me way less time to review. Please add these to as many questions as possible!
Congrats!! What do you think helped you break the plateau? I've been scoring in the high 160s for like a month now and would really appreciate any advice lol
Quick question! If I'm in drilling mode and I select the "Let virtual tutor pick" option, can I be assured that the questions I'm choosing are from my weakest question types?
#help
How often should I be taking full-length prep tests? My current plan is to take one per week, but is that overkill?
Yes, because as J.Y. said, the rules divide the domain (domestic, long-distance phone calls on Discount Phone Line) into two clean subsets. We're given that 9 am -5 pm calls are 15 cents, and that ANY OTHER call is 10 cents. From this, we have to infer that there is a binary: 9-5 and not 9-5. The question gives us no material to support the idea that there would be further categories than this. We just have to go off what is given. Hope this helps!
No, because in the question, it indicates that the astronomer's argument resolves the earlier conflict between the ages of the stars and the ages of the universe. The conflict is that stars were estimated to be 1 billion years older than the universe, which is impossible. You know that if the astronomer's argument resolved this problem, it must somehow show that the stars were younger than the universe.
Answer choice C says that the brighter a star is, the younger it must be. If this were true, the problem would be resolved.
I would appreciate seeing all the answer choices before getting an explanation!!
Is it accurate to say that comparative claims cannot be negated using Lawgic (only conditional and quantifiers)?
Yes, because claims with "some" can be reversibly read. I'll demonstrate it with an earlier example, "Some students in Mrs. Stoops' class can read" :
student ←s→ read : Some students in Mrs. Stoops' class can read.
read ←s→ student : Some students who can read are in Mrs. Stoops' class.
Both of these statements make sense. Hope this helps!
Sure!
Question 2.2 The quality of online education can increase more effectively if software developers communicate their latest updates and features directly to the educators, rather than waiting for tech conferences or official product launches. That is because...
There are two referentials here. The first is the word "their" ("their latest updates and features"). You should ask yourself, "Whose updates and features?" The answer is software developers, so that would be the referent to which the referential "their" refers.
The second referential is "that" at the beginning of the second sentence. In this case, "that" refers to the entire first sentence.
I'm confused by correct answer choice B on #12, the analogy question. It states that "automobiles can run without them"—"them" being secondary substances in terms of the analogy. But I thought secondary substances were "vital," as indicated by correct answer choice A in #11. This seems contradictory. Can anyone explain how secondary substances can be both non-essential and vital?