I highlighted "institutions in society that favor men over women" as a red flag for not choosing E. Sure it can be said that the labor market favors men over women but the passage says women are disadvantaged BECAUSE women are more often primary care givers. So the passage concedes that if men are primary care givers they'll also be disadvantaged, which is why "favor men over women" doesn't fit the passage properly. Answer choice E is too broad, this is also evidenced by the word "institutions" when the passage talks about the labor market specifically.

A is the best AC because it specifically mentions the labor market and it compares men to women in a way that the passage spoke about (passage talked about career and salary opportunities hindered for women, AC A says that men are in a better situation in that realm).

I treated #14 as a purpose question. I was stuck between A and D. Ultimately went with D because A was really focused on what the last paragraph said but ignored the rest of the passage. D is better because Dahl's defense of polyarchy can be seen as strengths and the criticism can be seen as weakness.

A is a classic trap AC because it only focuses on one part of the passage. Yes, Dahl talked about what A says, but it's not the purpose of the passage as a whole.

Ellen Cassidy's "The Loophole in Logical Reasoning" book helped me so much. I did 7Sage's CC first but I found that my fundamental LR skills were still lacking. I spent ~2 weeks reading the loophole book and drilling as it said, and it helped SO MUCH!!! The book helped me connect the dots on LR questions, and to understand on a deeper level how to attack LR. After reading the book, the more complicated parts of 7Sage's CC started to make way more sense (like advanced lawgic, the valid and invalid argument forms). For me, supplementing what 7Sage taught with the loophole book was a game changer. Best of luck to you!!!!

Thank you!!!

@stutimalhotra308 Congrats!!!!! How often did you meet with your tutor (days a week / hours)?

Depends on the assumption. If it's a reasonable assumption then that's okay, but if it exposes some big gap then no.

#help how do you do parallel reasoning questions under timed conditions? Just intuition or take the time to map out each AC?

If something is supported, then yes it's a conclusion. If the statement also provides support for something else, then it's a sub-conclusion. If an answer choice ONLY said "a statement that the argument is intended to support," then it's talking about a conclusion- not a sub-conclusion. An answer choice for a sub-conclusion would say something like "a statement that is supported by X and provides support for Y."

On line 12 it says "...had the additional virtue of being created by talented writers, directors, and producers devoted to the art of storytelling." Then the second paragraph talks about how today, subject matter of films are more often chosen by studio execs than writers, directors, and producers. These two points, one about the past and one about the present, suggest that the author would agree that the films of the 1920's were more engaging than today (because of the storytelling element).

If the percent of Euro applications goes down substantially, you can make the reasonable assumption that this will lower the overall number of applications. The key to making that assumption was the word "substantially," otherwise I would have no idea how much of a decline we're talking about. This AC weakens the argument because it gives a reason why the number of applications has gone down while not affecting the interest of North Americans (bc Euro applications going down doesn't have any bearing on the interest of North Americans).