Same here. I felt like "primary focus" was too strong because how do we know what the primary focus is?

I read passage A's second paragraph sentence as "(bentonite) and (other clays and polymers)," not "(bentonite and other clays) and (polymers)" and chose AC A...

I took a 2 week break and this question was part of the problem set I made when I got back... basically gave me a brain aneurysm.

The last sentence in Davis's argument threw me off

#help This is how I diagrammed the stimulus:

P1: P → CD

P2: E → CD

C: QA

AC D makes total sense when you switch the first premise to say "CD → P" but I'm confused on how one is suppose to know based off the 2nd sentence, to diagram it like "CD → P" instead of how I did it in my example.

Can someone explain to how one knows how to diagram the 2nd sentence? The sentence that starts with "But I argue..."

#help (Added by Admin)

So many tough words in this passage that I didn't know the definition to.

Definitely a great question to reference back to and learn from... but let's be honest, 99% of people are not getting this right under timed conditions unless you're the Einstein of LR or you guessed.

E is much easier to understand if you change "True" to "Possible."

I really misunderstood this argument. I thought it was saying

P: Voters judge candidates to have done poorly based off of excessive blink rates compared to normal.

C: This is bad for election results.

I didn't really understand the last sentence so I only focused on the conclusion. I was trying to find something to show that this ISNT bad for election results and assumed A was correct because it said voters judgements rarely affect election results. However, realizing the term rarely doesn't totally eliminate the possibility that it can makes sense.

C is much better because showing that excessive blinking = lack of confidence shows that this isn't bad for election results.

I cant quite put my finger on it, but something just feels off and incomplete still with this question. Don't get me wrong, A is definitely the best AC and is correct, but even after watching the explanation video and spending time doing it during BR, it still feels off.

I'm still not sold on Q15 being A and not C.

How does the author saying "his account draws our attention to an insight" = complete agreement? This is the only portion of passage A where the author isn't reporting on something Borges thinks or said. Idk how you can infer complete agreement from this super vanilla sentence when the entire rest of the passage is basically neutral.

For Q8, I feel like the wording for C is tricky. Like who says "might be put" at the end of a sentence

Anyone else miss #11 because you misread the question stem to say "agree" instead of "disagree"

I definitely did this

I feel like this question should be rated higher than a 3 star just because of how bad the argument is and how confusing the correct AC is, but at the same time... wtf were AC B, C, D, and E even trying to accomplish?

I initially chose E because I thought maybe more food options = less work for the lemurs (and less pronounced activity), but looking back... more options =/= less work. There could be an abundance of plants for the deciduous forest lemurs and no plants/insects for rainforest ones.

I'm glad I wasn't the only one thinking this way... this set of questions put me in a blender

I understood the argument, but the wording of AC D kind of tripped me up. Typing this up to help anyone who might have this confusion as well:

If you plug the 2nd portion of the AC ("Sometimes not punishing violations of the rule") into the first part of the stimulus (replacing "violations of any of a society's explicit rules routinely go unpunished"), then the conclusion would be 100% valid.

However, the author uses "the routine non-punishment of violations of a rule" (pretty much what the stimulus is saying in its first part) to draw its conclusion, making it invalid.

Feeling like a dummy picking C because I read it as "Some immoral actions" instead of "Some actions"

definitely interested!

Definitely interested!

Really wish this question stem had been phrased to look like an SA question. It makes so much more sense when you think of it as a bridging question and not a shielding one.

It's really crazy how if you just understand the point that "Voluntariness is irrelevant for policy making" can help you answer most of these questions. Definitely wish I would've realized that when taking this PT

Didn't know what "repudiated" or "capricious" meant which threw me off