can anyone confirm if all the explanations are up yet?

I don't know if I am correct in this approach, but i fully understood why this Question had the AC D, because of the Q stem. It explicitly states "The educators reasoning provides grounds for accepting..."

the First and second sentence are explicitly the educators reasoning. and when the BUT appears, i assumed it to be the authors opinion on the matter (so different from the educators).

So you need to support the reasoning demonstrated in the first couple lines, which makes tackling the AC's a lot easier because you're not bogged down by what the author says.

B, C, and E just have no bearing on the argument. A was tricky, but I had JY's line of thinking where I thought - "what does classifying have to do with being useful that mirrors the educators arg?" also, i thought this may POSSIBLY, in some stretched way, support the authors arg that understanding the significance (usefulness of plants/animals) of something will help further study on their own (understanding how the plants/animals are classified). Perhaps knowing the usefulness of a plant can help you classify it (ie categories of plants that help bruising, or nausea or reduce pain).

This is my wonky way of making sense of this question, and why i thought it fairly easy, though it was rated hard.

Awesome! thank you!

Thanks! I meant more so for other test takers - if you guys have come across any from recent PTs that have been kind out of the norm.

Can anyone help me with explaining question 21 in this game?? This is my post on the original game, here in 7sage. i will post it below.

"Can someone please explain a different/better explanation for question 21? Its asking what the MINIMUM number of doctors could be at Souderton, so the IN group.

I understand that either O/J have to be, and also, K/J.

What’s confusing me is – why couldn’t we do the exact same thing with other relationships in the chain?? for example: N/J, or N/P… either one of those could also be ones that have to be in, right? because you just read further down the logic chain and identify other OR pairings…

Am i reading the logic chain wrong? Can you not identify OR pairings unless they are right beside each other in the chain?

Because when i read it the way I am, then identifying the OR relationships (inclusive, meaning one of the pairs must be IN) makes this question come out to a lot of different possibilities, and makes it more confusing – it certainly does not clearly lead me to AC (C) – a minimum of 2.

The other way to look at it, is to read your chain outright and see that J and P could both be in while the other three in the chain are out. But what if you put only P in? then you’d have the minimum of 1 IN. BUT, then again you could say what i said above – either N/J and O/J have to be, which brings the minimum back up to 3…

I may be reading into the chains incorrectly, but any explanation or correcting of my thinking would be appreciated!"

That makes a lot more sense! Is there anyway to describe it mechanistically? (like how i negated the terry's statement into a Some Statement - or something along those lines?) Because, though it makes sense, all the other answer choices seem SO similar that if i were to do it again, I'd be in the same spot and not sure how to distinguish between them.

interested in this.

Is "it follows that..." a conclusion indicator?

thanks guys

anyone able to describe why exactly E is wrong?

What is D saying?! HOW is ROUTINE non punishment confused with SOMETIMES not punishing???

aren't we confusing ROUTINE non punishment with NEVER not punishing?!

I am so lost.

@ said:

We're bound to get a lot of decisions back this week.

What makes you say that?

Hi Sami. I have just started to go through the curriculum, but I think these lessons may be valuable. Is there a possibility you may be recording the lessons and posting them somewhere for people to review later?