- Joined
- Jul 2025
- Subscription
- Free
core curriculum then one PT a week, after the PT do blind review and the next day watch explanation videos for any questions that you got wrong, flagged, or that took you a long time and really take your time and review to understand why you got the questions wrong (could start a wrong answer journal). then do untimed drills on question types you missed in the PT and that 7sage analytics say you need to work on. this is what has worked for me and as i get closer to test day i do 2 PTs a week (but don't get burnt out) and the drills in between are level 4-5 difficulty. i don't really do timed sections for practice unless it's RC here and there but some people like doing less PTs and more timed sections so see what works for you!
my brain hurts i hope whoever wrote this question gets sucked into a black hole and comes face to face with a quasar
i hope whoever wrote this question develops severe insomnia
@urmom lsac got me so effed up i can't even spell
i hate yo
@Kingrosey I initially thought this too but Olson actually wouldn't disagree because he's saying the FOSSILS date back 55 million years, not primates themselves. So, the primates would have to have been around for more than 55 million years (ex: 56 million years) so that they would have died and become fossils by the time it was 55 million years ago. Basically the distinction to take note of is between fossils and the actual primates which are not the same thing.
I think it also helps to just compare each person's conclusion to find the disagreement. Carrillo's conclusion: our statistical model strongly supports the conclusion that the first primate developed around 81.5 million years ago.
Olson's conclusion: your estimate of how long primate species' development has gone on is sheer speculation.
Carillo's estimate is based on his statistical model, so ofc he would agree that his statistical model is reliable and Olson would disagree because he thinks it's sheer speculation (not a far stretch to say that sheer speculation means unreliable), so B is the correct answer. Also the statistical model dates the first appearance of primates, not of fossils, so that matches what both of them are talking about in their conclusions vs. Olsen's premise is just about fossils, so keeping that distinction in mind is important.
Idk if that made any sense, I hope this helps lol