Deleted, my bad! Post-video clarity

Time eater. Skip and save for the very end

I see what you mean, but I think your labeling might be incorrect. With "any", we know that if it's an internally consistent scientific theory, then it's plausible. "Internally consistent" is just a qualifier to show a specific subset of scientific theories. We can't say that all scientific theories are plausible, but we know for a fact that if it's internally consistent, then it's plausible.

It may seem like being "internally consistent" is required in order to be plausible, but if that was true, then that'd mean that all plausible things are "internally consistent scientific theories", which isn't proven here. Lots of other things could be plausible that have nothing to do with science. It could also be plausible that my cat will wake me up for breakfast tomorrow by jumping on my chest (more than plausible). So we have no idea what all the plausible things in the world are, but we know for a fact that if a scientific theory is internally consistent, then it's plausible. A scientific theory being internally consistent is sufficient for us to know it's plausible; it's all we need to know for it be plausible.

I hope this helps a bit

Technically what we're comparing is the percentage, but the winner depends on the superlative. Basically, whichever side has the "er" at the end is typically the winner. In this case, 1980 has the "er". If the stimulus said "injuries...made up a larger percentage of injuries in 1980 than in 1950", 1980 would still be the winner.

lol your explanation can do without the patronizing tone. We’re all in the same boat here, trying to better our prep for this test

I had the same; I think it's just a recording issue. Your computer's all good!

For Q21, I understand why the other ACs are incomplete or wrong, but D is weird because it doesn't sound like a main point for a problem-analysis passage. In those, the main point is typically the author's argument or what they're trying to convince us of, but D doesn't take a stance. It just describes. If anything, it sounds more like a single position or spotlight main point, since it's objective and descriptive. Just seems like a problem-analysis main point should almost always take a side in some way.

"Whoa, just take it easy, man"

Definitely a great idea and I’m considering that too. Seeing where the tone changes and where support transitions to opposition or vice versa seems to be huge, especially since this lesson’s showed me that multiple breaks can occur in one paragraph, much more frequently than I thought

I think the idea is to get to the point where you don't need to and instead can just intuitively remember/very quickly skim for details if need be. Maybe writing out low-res summaries on scratch paper for the first few untimed passages can help if you have trouble remembering, but that'll take up time during actual sections.

I personally like to highlight what I consider to be the main point or most important sentence of each paragraph, and I highlight each time a name appears of someone who holds an opinion, as well as when certain important words appear, just so I can easily refer back to them. But that's just because this works for me, and everyone has their own strategies too

Curious about this too. Is it in our best interest to have an argumentative sample even if we have an old writing sample on file, or is our time better spent improving the other areas of our apps instead? #help

Eight 4 or 5-star questions in the last ten questions of the section is malicious business

When you think about it, you can get this question correct by only reading the last sentence of the stimulus, and I despise it for wasting my time like this lol

In Q20, I understand how E is correct because JY explained it well, but I think the reasoning for D being incorrect is completely BS. If the results of the study lend credence to the dowsers' accuracy, then it's a tale of opposites. If the dowsers were significantly more accurate than the scientists, then the scientists were significantly less accurate than the dowsers. If the dowsers could locate a dry fracture zone on request, then this wouldn't be worth mentioning as evidence in their favor unless it was also true that the scientists could not do so on request. If JY's hypothetical was true and maybe the scientists could do so even better than the dowsers, then how does mentioning this help the dowsers?

For Q18, I can see why E is correct (even though I assume the proponents of Pan-Indianism are more nuanced than just "everything about current Native American culture is leading toward assimilation"), but I don't see why B is wrong. Pan-Indianism supporters DO negatively characterize cultural borrowing by calling it assimilation and dilution of traditional values. They don't even use the term "cultural borrowing", instead describing it in a harrowing light. It's the author who corrects these perspectives and clarifies them as cultural intertribalism. So why is that not considered discomfort?

D is such bs lol. If the reasoning for why it's incorrect was true, then the stimulus' conclusion should've specified by saying "producing characters more automatically freed up mental resources for other activities for the participants". Without an indication that the domain of the conclusion only applies to the experiment, why is it incorrect to assume that it's a universal statement?

I originally picked B but switched to D during blind review because I read B's "funded by elected representatives" to just refer to money coming directly out of the reps' pockets, not taxpayer money allocated by the reps.

I switched to D because it seemed to fit the argument that the taxpayers weren't treated unjustly, because they have a method to remedy the situation through voting those representatives out. Basically, if you don't like how we use funds, don't vote for us. You reap what you sow. I see now that that doesn't work because the columnist said "NO taxpayers have been treated unjustly", which means my above reasoning wouldn't work. Maybe there were some taxpayers who didn't vote for these reps because of their stance on offensive art, and yet they still have to suffer the election outcome because their candidate lost. In their case, voting was not a remedy that actually worked for them.

I just didn't like the wording of B on my 2nd pass through. Maybe that was an instance of BR's lack of time limit resulting in overthinking

What a nightmare of a question to tackle under a time limit

I don't like this question because they're playing on how we interpret this broad conclusion. Yes, A) supports the conclusion. That's only because the conclusion is so vague already.

I chose E) because it supports the premises, which support the conclusion. If "me too" drugs cause the OG companies to lose money, then that supports the idea that they cause price reduction. This in turn supports the idea that "me too" drugs benefit consumers.

A) completely ignores the premises and just introduces a whole new premise. So yeah, it's technically correct, but that just seems really shady given how we're reinforced with the idea that a correct strengthening AC bolsters the connection between the premises and conclusion (as seen in the Goku kamehameha graphic in the previous core curriculum).

For Q14, I fail to see how the socioeconomic flux FACILITATED the cakewalk instead of implying that the cakewalk succeeded IN SPITE OF the flux. "In the flux, an art form had to be capable of being many things to many people in order to appeal to a large audience". This suggests that the flux is an impediment in which only something as unique the cakewalk could succeed. D) claims that the flux helped the cakewalk proliferate, and I really don't see that in this paragraph

E is worded very weirdly and I feel like a reasonable test-taker wouldn't see "no evidence" as meaning "oh, there's no evidence because the govt already destroyed it".

I interpreted it as "if it's true that there's no evidence that could support the defendant, then the question of if the govt destroyed evidence doesn't matter anymore". We know that prior to any possible destruction, no evidence could help the defendant. So even if the govt destroyed something, it wasn't relevant evidence. Whatever they destroyed had nothing to do with the case by virtue of it not being supporting evidence that the attorney referred to.

JY (and the writers) seem to interpret it as "if it's called evidence, then that's all we need to know. It doesnt matter if it supports the defendant or not; as long as it's known as evidence, it's fair game to question. That's why A is correct. It just seems like the issue was surrounding the timing of possible destruction instead of what the definition of "evidence" was, and I clearly didn't see that.

Anyone else see this question similarly?

For Q8, did anyone else eliminate C because it appeared to confuse sufficient and necessary, and didn't state the main purpose of the passage? The passage implies that "if you have a complete understanding of the Pacific Coast's history, then you understand Asian settlers' impact". Asian impact is necessary for understanding, not sufficient. This also follows that historiographers' ultimate goal is to understand the history of the Pacific Coast. Recognizing Asian impact is a means to that end.

However, C claims that the main idea of the passage is understanding Asian impact, not understanding the history of the Pacific Coast. I fail to see how that was the author's main purpose. I picked E because it was the least wrong answer to me (even though I disliked "inaccurate" just like JY did), but did anyone else have the same issues with C that I did?

I’ve never been more demoralized than getting this wrong in both a drill and BR, only to find out it’s a 1 star lol

I completely misinterpreted C in Q10. I assumed that Passage B DID have specific examples in that it described the writing habits of practicing lawyers and the quality of law school courses. If I had known that "specific examples" basically just meant name-dropping, such as the conference in Passage A or citing an article, C would've been much more convincing for me.

I made an incorrect assumption in choosing E, but I also considered it the least bad answer because B tripped me up. I thought it was a trap answer because Oblicek wasn't directly causing the misfortune. It was ultimately up to her brother whether he takes out the loan or not, so I assumed that the logic was irrelevant because it was just an enticing trick regardless. I clearly overthought this question since it was apparently a 2 star lol