When blind reviewing, are you satisfied with just writing "irrelevant" as your explanation for why an answer choice is incorrect?
That's what I've been doing, but I sense that I might be cheating myself out of a deeper insight here. Is there something to trying to expand on/further characterize the irrelevance, or is this just a fruitless exercise?
Any inclination to disclose which T10 school it is?
PT 54 (June 2008), LR1 Q9. This is a Necessary Assumption question I got wrong initially but got correct on the blind review after grudgingly going with (A).
Here's the argument as I see it: the new minimum wage increase means that the museum's expenses exceed its revenue, so now it has to make adjustments that will impact museum-goers.
The correct answer is (A): Some of the museum's employee's are not paid significantly more than the minimum wage.
I skipped over (A) initially because it sounded so weak the way it's phrased with the word 'significantly.' I now get the basic idea, and I get that all the other answer choices are just plain wrong, but STILL. Anyone care to chime in and perhaps share how they navigate around a word like this? I don't recall seeing it in the CC.
I would also suggest doing both.
You can always focus on drilling using the LR problem sets included at the end of each lesson section and, even more importantly, truly committing to memory the things that other people have identified as critical to moving through the timed LR with speed (knowing the common flaws, valid and invalid argument forms, etc.)
For me personally, if I do too much of one section type in a short amount of time it kiiiiinda makes me want to scream. Variety is your friend.
Thanks everyone. I think there's some good advice in all of your responses.
When I've tried to expand on an answer choice I've marked as irrelevant, I've found that for most of them irrelevant means "this could apply to both the argument and its negation and have the exact same effect." I'm sure as I encounter more in my BRs there will be opportunities to characterize them differently, but this seems like a good start.