awesome thanks for the tips Justin and JY!

This might seem too basic for you, but what is your process for minimizing their recurrence? Is this where blind review simply comes into play? I find blind review works better for LG, where it's harder to remember the answers, than LR or RC...

Thanks for the excellent explanation. I was one of the lucky ones that go this correct through POE, but lost a lot of time. Just to solidify my understanding. The key issue is the difference between (1) wrecking a position versus (2) wrecking a conclusion. To wreck a position, you could do what they did, which is to undermine support between conclusion and premise. However, to qualify as wrecking a position, one would have to use language that says **the reasoning** is flawed, not **the conclusion** is flawed, as the stimulus does here. To wreck a conclusion, you would have to provide your own independent conclusion and premise as an alternative. Only then might you be able to say **the conclusion** is flawed. is this a good summary?

Hey JY, was wondering if you had any thoughts about maximizing focus and clarity of thought during the test. During blind review, I caught 4 mistakes - points I really could have used. Examining answers without the pressure of time increases my clarity of thought, but, obviously, I won't have that luxury during the actual test.

i like this, thanks Tyler. I was able to narrow it down to D and E, but I started to confuse myself. I wonder if there is some kind of technique one could use (e.g. a diagram or visualization) to rule out answer choices, which appear to test your knowledge about proportions.

Hey, thanks for the explanation. I got this right through POE, but I had a hard time understanding what (C) meant at first. Any tips on this statement? I think the crux of my difficult was the use of referential phrasing of "that," which actually refers to the first half of the sentence (a substance that some users cease to use with no difficulty). If we say "that" is not true for most, then the statement becomes addictive only if "a substance that most users cease to use with difficulty". Is that right?

For the second principle, E + R --> (RT -> LR or LTS >> C). let's say LR and LTS were met. Does that mean retooling happens?

excellent. i like this a lot. I'm getting the sense your answer will be "practice," but do you have any specific suggestions for knowing if splitting will trigger a cascade of inferences?

Is there a place where we can learn rules of thumb to split diagrams? From what I've been reading and watching so far, it's useful to split diagrams based on things that have to be true but give you limited options. For instance, splitting diagrams based on not-both rules.

when you're actually doing RC sections, do you find yourself making drawings like that on the side, or just imagining them? I think it's a really useful technique, but I'm wondering what's feasible given time constraints.

so I was really stuck between A and B on this one. I think I'm having trouble with referential language because i have a tendency to misinterpret. For instance, I read "against a view" as referring to lack of evidence for the courthouse position. Could you give me some advice on avoiding this?

hey everyone, anyone in boston/cambridge area taking the test this october?

is anyone around in the boston/cambridge area? I took june, but i'm planning for an october retake.

I eliminated C for a different reason. I chose D over C because D seemed more specific to the assumption and stronger (more vs many). For (C), could it also be conceived of as a strengthen because the conclusion is saying that **the census** will show a decrease in the population, not that there **actually** is a decrease. So if many people didn't register who moved in, there will indeed be a population decrease recorded, even if there isn't an actual population decrease.

I was confused by E. The stimulus says "this [improvement] would not have happened without regulations" : Improve --> Regulation. But E says "public outcries led to an improvement", which makes it seem like PO --> Improve. However, we only know that PO --> Regulation <-- Improve ?

Hey JY, could you help me figure out how you could eliminate (A) from Q25? I was stuck between A and B.

What drew me to A was that it seemed to have very clear support in the passage (24-28). The author provides the scenario where a solitary host has to stay home, rhinoviruses die and therefore cannot become very virulent.

B was also attractive because I know of the contrast between rhinoviruses and tb, as illustrated in paragraph 4. However, I chose A because it seemed to be more directly supported...

aw! i wish i was in NYC!