Hi David Michael, thanks for your excellent response! I really appreciate the detailed message.

I definitely see the first sentence of the stimulus as "A ----> B" [salespeople ---> steer customers toward products from which they make their highest commision]

So, all salespeople in major health stores (let us call them C) help us reach

C ---> A ---> B

(salespeople in major health stores ---> salespeople ---> steer customers . . .)

So there is no flaw. But IF it had said, 'Salespeople generally tend to steer customers toward products from which they make highest commissions' and from that conclude that the salespeople in the health stores do the same, would that be a whole to part flaw? Even then, I'm not sure it would because the main conclusion is strictly concerned about the quality of products being inaccurate.

Thank you so much!

For the explanatory role in Question 15, I said to myself, OK - the author drew an inference about the explanatory role of intensive training (i.e., how intensive training explains) superior performance. What is this inference? Intensive training depends on interest and desire, which is precisely discussed in the final paragraph.

I guess it is connected with the motivational factors too, but the inferences are allowed to be related! I don't believe they have to be mutually exclusive.

That's awesome! I don't recall PT 44 LG on the top of my head, but going from -10 to -5 is good. Keep doing em! It's the only way to get better. Cheers

Hello,

I just did PT 65 yesterday. I actually had an opposite experience. I found the first LR section of that test harder than the second section. I also found the second LR particularly easier than other PTs. Perhaps the difference is due to our different strengths in question types. But what we can be sure is that tests usually have 1 hard and 1 easy LR. Also, this is the first time I did this, but I marked down quickly how much time I had left when I reached certain questions. For the 2nd LR section, by the time I reached question 13, I had 19 mins left. By the time I reached question 20, I had 9.5 minutes left. I ended up having to guess 1 question; I ended up with -3. (First LR I had -6 too). (I'm not sure if telling you this helps but I just wanted to respond to your post on PT 65)

The RC was ridiculously hard, IMO.

You can try to make a games bundle for yourself. For example, you can pick out some basic linear/sequencing games, use a paper clip to hold them together. Then the grouping in/out ones. Then double layering sequencing. You get the idea, SIMILAR game types, bundle them together. Then do them so you can start to see the patterns for each game type because the inferences and the rules are so often recycled! It helps you build confidence, too. I think that this should help you slightly better than reviewing game sections after game sections.

I don't think you need to be good at math. I can't think of any game where I need to have knowledge of math (like, algebra.)

Lastly, this works for me and a lot of other test takers I'm sure. Give it a try: recycle your work. So do the questions that say 'IF this goes in THIS SLOT, what could be true?' first. Then later, if there's a question that asks you for 'What must be false' you can look BACK at your work in the other question and quickly eliminate answer choices. Also, spend time doing the set-up diagram. I know it's hard because you want to move onto the questions but it pays off well later.

Thanks so much for the explanation, YesManJr!

@

In case anyone wants to practice with this rule in the Logical Reasoning section, PT63, S3, Q. 22 is excellent practice!

Gotcha- thank you Jonathan!

Hi J.Y., in answer choice (B), would it have to add something along the lines of "....making the comparison between the 2 texts unreliable" in order for us to say that it successfully attacks the supporting premise? Thanks

Hi Jonathan, thanks for your input.

(Warning: partial PT 60 question SPOILER alert below)

I re-read the conclusions for both questions. In the PT 60 example, I can see that the conclusion is supported by the surveys... but it's a terrible support because the economists make a different claim (they made a claim about the strongest incentive, NOT preference). In the medical condition video lesson, the conclusion is also supported by the studies... but there isn't another claim to compare it to.

Still quite lost. So what I'm getting is that there's no black/white rule about using another survey/study to weaken answer choices and that it depends on the context of the argument?

Hi there! Thanks for responding. Yes- you are right, answer choice (a) in the medical example does indeed weaken. I am not confused about that particular question but rather, why in that case, 'another study' is acceptable as a weakener, yet in the other example I mentioned, 'another study' is out of scope.

I hope I clarified it better!

Gotcha! Thanks A LOT again for typing all that out. This is great, learning something new everyday. So generally = usually = cannot apply that property to the group 100% of the time. I have not seen this often on the PTs but if I see it, I will make a note to be careful about distinguishing the flaws. I assume that the answer choice will mirror that language though, by saying that the author cannot presume without justification that what one group generally does together is what each individual group would generally do by him/herself.

Nice reference to the wood-table example! That question really bugged me because all the answer choices seemed the same (It was metal and a desk though).