Or he reads doesn't even finish reading the answer that you chose and says something like, "This is so far from correct, Jesus Christ," or "Uhhhhhhhhh, oh-kayyy?"

bro

If you read the first part of the Argumentative Writing module, it says if you have a gut feeling about the question being asked then go with that as it will be easier to write a compelling argument for it. If you read the prompt and have no opinion, then read the perspectives and see what you agree with.

4:26 is that not a huge assumption you just made?

You can easily answer this question without Passage B.

Where in the passage does it say anything about historians' willingness to borrow methods of analysis from other disciplines when evaluating evidence?

Not at all. "... neutral judge" refers to seeing things objectively and so does "... balance and evenhandedness." Neither of them imply that one must be respectful of others' interpretations. You can look at things and people's opinions from an objective standpoint and still be a dick about it

Don't burn yourself out. Take a day off from studying and you'll feel better coming back to it.

Yeah that's how I read it as well.

Read the passages and focus on actually understanding what is written. After you can reliably do that, then you can worry about your timing. I was 50 seconds slower than the target for the setup on the first RC question but I got 6/8 correct. To me, that's a win.

Also, when you're reading the passage, don't look at the timer. I know it's hard, but looking will just make you more anxious and more likely to speed up your reading and skim over important info.

I felt this was a bit too easy of a RC, all the answers were no-brainers.

I mean the context surrounding "boilerplate technological determinism" makes it pretty clear what that term means, lol.

Rewrite of P2: "Next opinion. Custom-made drawings of injuries can’t be biased and unreliable as expert opinion needed for admissibility."

My low res summary for this question:

%%%%

P1: Debate. Except for exceptional/unusual injuries, generic injuries just need generic diagrams.

P2: Next opinion. Custom-made drawings of injuries are biased and unreliable.

P3: Counterpoint to P2. When drawing an injury, pro medical illustrators include only components of injury necessary for a judge or jury to make a decision.

P4: Second counterpoint to P2. Medical illustrations are based on scans, X-rays, etc. and explain some things (e.g. complex terminology and anatomy) in a simpler way than words can.

%%%%

It's slightly long and I may have missed some stuff but it's my first try actually doing it so I'm satisfied.

the highlighting tool is really helpful

I miss JY

Idk why it's right, I just know that all the others are definitely wrong

Process of elimination, baby

I didn't pick C because it seemed too vague and like it required too big of an assumption >:(

Bruh when you put "organic factors" and "deficiency in a compound in the brain" in the same sentence then I automatically consider organic factors meaning only things to do with your body, not with the outside environment. Obviously it's by design but holy f that pisses me off lol

I find I read the correct answer after and realize if I spent another 10 secs on it that I would have actually understood what it said. I try not to look at the timer but I'm also trying to answer the questions as if I only have like 1 min 20 secs for each question so I end up just doing PoE and moving on if I'm taking too long.

Yeah for me it's like, "I'm not 100% sure I know the meaning of that word, so it's probably safer to skip it"

When in doubt do PoE

username checks out

Answer A seemed way too obvious, I discarded it almost immediately lmao