Hi! I started with a 149 in June 1st, and the scores are trudging up by weeks! In the span of 1 and a half months I managed to bring it up by 13 pts (162). Progress is definitely not linear since I was stuck at 149 for 3 tests in a row. Hoping to make my next big jump to the high 160s. Don’t be discouraged if the points sit still for a while, try to drill the ones you’re not good at (for me it’s all 3 sections 😆)

You got this!

For Main Conclusion questions, you need to id either an AC that is a direct reference to the stimulus' conclusion or an exact paraphrase. The stimulus' first sentence says "T's poetry line is misconstrued as a reference to D's theory" whereas A says "T's poetry line cannot now be construed as an apt description to D's theory." misconstrued ≠cannot now be construed. Misconstrued here, as I understood, is similar to wrong characterization/attribution. E does just what the MC did—"T's poetry was not a reference to D's theory."

I guess the missing piece to understand this flaw would be to consider how many people go up to Mt. Everest in the span of 80 years vs. how many people traveled in France for 80 years. If there are only around 300 people who climb Mt. Everest in 80 years, then the 2/3 ratio of climbing fatalities to climbers is quite high right? How many people traveled in total on French road in 2002? From that, I think the ratio of traffic fatalities to people traveling on road would be much smaller than Mt. Everest ratio, and the columnist's comparison is inadequate to draw out the conclusion "mountain climbing dangers have been exaggerated." And your thought process is pretty thorough imo!

Here's how I saw A C and E:

A is questioning whether the traffic fatalities in 2002 France was higher than other years (- this to me sounded like it's trying to pin the flaw on an outlier data point. Not really the flaw here, since it doesn't matter if traffic fatalities in 2002 was higher than any other year, it's still higher than that of Mt. Everest across 80 years.(/p)

C: I don't think the stimulus is concerned with stricter safety measures or reducing the number of fatalities. It's more concerned with how the media has exaggerated the dangers of mountain climbing, and here are the two statistics that prove it.

E: I can see why the columnist extrapolating the mountain climbing dangers in general from climbing one of the world's most dangerous mountains can qualify as a flaw in this question. However, the issue here is still comparing a large ratio of mountain fatalities over the course of 80 years from a seemingly limited sample size (my necessary assumption here is that the number of people who climbed mt Everest in an 80-year span does not exceed the number of people who traveled on French road in 2002) to a larger sample size with a seemingly larger fatalities number (people traveling on French road.)

=> D is the right one since it points out the flaw in sample size! ~200/300 in mountain climbing fatalities is definitely higher than, for example, ~7000/3 million.

lmk if this makes sense to you!!

love the design! I think that layout B is more intuitive with the column setup for Actual and BR Scores. My 1st note—would it be better if the BR column is to the right of the Actual column? 2nd note—the colors seem a little close to what Magoosh interface uses? Plz feel free to ignore these! Thank you for the new options!!

if we're talking 92+ then we're in the same boat :neutral: