Honestly, I think you're overthinking WRT 7sage V1 and V2. Do the core curriculum, drills, PTs w/ Blind Review, and more drills. I never took the PT 7sage recommends prior to doing the CC but I took one as part of a different studying program, got like a 148, and recently I got a 162 and BR 166 after finishing the CC and just doing the problem sets and logic games drills. Mindset is everything; instead of thinking of all the study methods and ruminating over which is best, stick to 1 and genuinely try to learn (take a lot of notes and more notes on review vids for the questions you get wrong). Honestly, you also have more time than August if you really need it. First thing 7sage recommends is not to try and squeeze all studying into 3 months trying to get a 170. It gets harder and harder to get a higher score as your score improves due to the curve. Hope this helps, and stick with it!

If you see the tag, its more of a pseudo-sufficient assunption question type, and with these there are slight variations. If you go back to the PSA lesson, you'll see that rather than be exact like an SA: (bolded is answer)

A

A----->B

--------------

B

Its more like this: A' is similar, but not exactly, A.

A'

A----->B

--------------

B

I know its slightly off because (A) is more general than (1) but... thats how I did it and I got it right

Just leaving my thoughts in case it helps anyone:

I wrote the logic in basically the same way as JY, but I think the translation from English may be more intuitive; instead of thinking "lecturer + effective teacher," I just combined terms and sort of made the group we were talking about "lecturers" (in a way I also made the assumption that teachers=lecturers)

EF: effective

EC: eccentric

GC: good communicator

EF---m---> EC

/EC some EF

EF----->GC

From these premises, we can draw 2 conclusions:

1) GC some EC: some good communicators are eccentric lecturers

2) /EC some GC: some non-eccentric lecturers are good communicators

(1) is answer choice (A) and we can anticipate it #feedback

Hi, I wanted to chime in on this. For me, I originally had answered D when I was taking the drill, and was still unsure on my answer in the BR. But what I understood is that the "often" in the stimulus doesn't matter because for something to be a good thing, it must cause NO harm. So even if wealth often, but sometimes does not, cause harm, it is not a good thing because NEVER causing harm is the necessary condition for something to be a "good thing." So, we have to interpret what often means in this context, which is not the same as mostly in the context of answer choice D. If we replace "often" for "mostly" ("wealth mostly causes harm") it still wouldn't make a difference because of the premise that a good thing NEVER causes harm. Hope this made sense

interested!