The part of the stimulus that says "total available coal supplies" made me assume that it is about the total in reserve rather than what they mine each year.

Hey,

I think A goes back to the conclusion that "instructions have to be repeated many times". The argument says it has to be repeated many times but overlooks this requirement and simply gives the subliminal command to the clients that they have heard this many times. Therefore, the issue is that it doesn't meet the requirements that it set out

Hey,

The chimps have to be assumed to reciprocate their affection because it says they are similar to humans and humans protect those that give affection out of reciprocal affection for them.

Hello,

from my understanding, the coal reserve from 1990 rolls over to 1991. So, if the coal is not exported and there was less coal in 1991, then either there was none mind or there was some mined but not greater than what was consumed.

Hey,

Yeah, that diagram is right.

The contrapositive would be /strengthen economy->/complete apartment

Hey,

I'm not sure I completely understand your question but the reason E is not correct is because the prospect of 'later' is outside of the scope of the argument. The argument is only concerned with the present moment. Even in the case that the argument is addressing the future, the union member's position is against striking so he would have to argue that striking would not be an option even at a later time.

E is incorrect because it is outside of the scope (time) and it is counter to what the union member is arguing for.

following

Hey, if it is about the beginning sentence, "to" signifies a a sufficient condition, similar to "if"

Hey! It might also help to do an LSAT flex and then a separate RC sections the end by creating them as prep sets.

Hey!

This looks like a PSA question type. We are looking for an answer choice that will guarantee the conclusion.

Conclusion: the mosaic should have been left there.

Premise: we have also the records that we need and it may misguide others.

A. This answer is close to an NA answer but NA answers can serve as PSA andSA answers. If it wasn’t true that archeological reasons were not the only reasons, it would weaken the argument by showing that they cannot return the item to the spot. For example, what if we have to consider social reasons? what is it is a heritage that need to be preserved in a museum?

C. This strengthens the argument by showing why it is there, but it doesn’t completely prove it. It doesn’t say the original location is the only location the materials could be apparent. It could also be apparent in a museum.

Hey!

I noticed a slight difference between the old and new ones. For example, the new LRs are more nuanced than the older LRs. Also, the new ones have comparative passages while the old ones don't. It has helped to use the old ones to drill and the new ones to do full PTs though so you could always do a combination.

Hey!

So there could be a couple of things happening. It could be a rule misread, a rule interpretation mistake, a timing error (running out of time), a set up problem (not setting up a master gameboard or setting up the wrong gameboards), an inference problem (lack of inference or wrong inference), a question type problem (CBT and MBT confusion), or picking an answer first before reviewing the rest of the answer choices.

Right after doing the sections, do a thorough BR. When you correct an answer in your BR that you previously got wrong, ask how you got it right this time and what your process was previously. Also, jot down how you will go about it when you encounter a similar issue next time. Don't see the answer until you have done these steps.

It will also be helpful to have a specific process of how you approach games. Break them down into steps and apply it each time you do an LG section.

Hey! What's your score breakdown for the others?

For LR, what question types does your Analytics highlight as higher priority? You could make a section out of them and drill.

Do you BR? If so, what is your process?

Treat it like you would a "Must Be True" question in LR

Hello @yilmaelshaday233-180

First off, that's some impressive improvement! One advice I found from The Loophole book is to ask if each potential answer is provable. A provable answer is completely supported by the passage and you can reference back to check it. Each answer for RC is a provable answer, so even if the question asks us to infer, you can often find support for it in the passage. Sometimes the answer is found by joining sets of information or by assessing assumptions. A good question to ask is, "can I be certain there is something in the passage that can support this answer choice?"

You can also use the system that is shown in the explanation videos that shows the differences between most strongly supported and inference.

Is there a video posted or future sessions?

Hey!

I’m working on the others but it helped me to full proof LG down to 0-2.

@jhaldy10325

This is super helpful! Thank you!

Oppse! Meant to say PT3.S4.Q20

Hello @jhaldy10325 Get Right,

Thanks for the great advice. Untimed deep review of the questions and the reasoning behind the answers are very helpful. I did a review of the missed questions in different PTs untimed and it really helped my understanding of the structures and this understanding increased my blind review score. However, I notice that when I do similar questions under timed conditions, my mind reverts back to old faulty patterns of reasoning. I thought of making timed sections out of missed questions to solve for this, but I need to adopt a strategy that will prevent me from reverting back to the old patterns. Do you have advice on how to apply blind review-level understanding on timed PTs?

Hey, I really get it. Something that works for me is to approach the answer choices as could be true first and crossing them off that way. The remaining answer choice would then be the EXCEPT answer.

Synopsis: Tears share hormones with stress. Crying removes these hormones. Therefore, it must reduce emotional stress.

The gap: what if the hormones do not cause or sustain the stress?

Emotional stress->hormones

Tears-> lowers hormones.

Therefore, tears->reduce emotional stress

A. Crying and shedding tears are the same things.

/B. There is no confusion between SA and NA.

C. There is no statement the causally connects tears with stress in the premises.

/D. There are no factors that together cause a reduction of stress in this argument. It is only shedding tears.

E. Yes, it assumes that because certain hormones are present when stress occurs, that hormones are causing the stress. Therefore, when hormones are lowered, the stress is lowered.

Therefore, E is correct.

Part: scientific studies cannot be used to disprove a correlation between personality type and any other phenomenon.

Argument role: It is a sub-conclusion since there is a premise that supports it. In turn, it supports the conclusion that “the statement that there is no correlation between people’s astrological signs and their personality types is scientifically unjustified”.

A. This AC says that it is a premise, which is incorrect.

B. This AC says that it is a sub conclusion, which is right.

C. The overall conclusion is the sentence before it.

D. It is given as support for the conclusion, not something to be discredited.

E. It is not a specific instance, it is a general statement.

Therefore, B is correct.