Can underinclusiveness be interpreted as inaccurate rather than incomplete in MSS questions?

@nye887085 Got it! Thank you so so much for your explanation :D

What is "an action" in (E) referring to?

In order for (C) to be true, we need to assume that SUVs get into accidents and cause fatalities more often than other cars.

But this assumption cannot be made just based on the stimulus given. Hope this helps!

Can anyone please explain how (A) can strengthen the argument?

Thanks for your explanation!

If I translate (E) into lawgic, is it "apology sincerely offered" or "apology accepted" --> "acknowledge?"

I totally agree with what JY says about reasons for eliminating (A). But because it says "in general" in the stimulus, isn't "many customers" in (A) still consistent with the stimulus above?

I definitely think that (B) is the most suitable choice for this inference question, but I am still struggling to find out a crystal-clear reason for eliminating (A).

@cjones76927 Yup! I definitely agree with you that those differences are not a waste. Thank you so much for your response :)

When I read the sentence "in particular, there were more cookbooks sold," I had to think hard if it meant 'there were more cookbooks sold than other books that year' or 'if more cookbooks were sold that year than in any previous years.'

But, based on J.Y.'s explanation as well as on the correct answer, it seems to me that the latter interpretation is right. Can anyone please explain how I would know it's the latter one?

Thank you

Even though the author never explicitly mentions his attitude toward lawyers nor evidentiary technicalities, we can definitely derive from the paragraphs 1 and 2 that the author is not a big fan of the 18th-century evidence law. For example, the author says "among common-law doctrines regarding evidence there were principles that today are regarded as bizarre" in line 4-6 and "Yet such evidence was mechanically excluded even where out-of-court statements were both relevant and reliable, but the absent persons could not appear in court" in line17-20.

Based on these parts, we can safely infer that the author would like to see reforms in the evidence law, but from line 23-26, we know that "reform was frustrated both by the vested interests of lawyers and by the professions's... precedent."

Because those lawyers thwarted the idea of the reform which the author thinks is needed, the author would definitely be no fan of the lawyers.

"sentient being on another planet" + " cannot communicate" --> "the only way is a spacecraft"

I tried the Trainer, Powerscore and 7Sage for diagrams, and I found Powerscore particularly helpful to understand diagrams. But people's preferences vary, so I wouldn't say Powerscore provides the best instruction for drawing diagrams. So, you should try all methods available and see which one would fit you the best.

To draw diagrams quickly, you need to practice many times. I really promise you it will get better! The more you practice diagramming, the more likely you will be seeing patterns and you may not even need to diagram on paper during the timed exam.

@nordeend22

Especially, I definitely agree on the LG point. I got too complacent about it on the October test.

Thank you so so much for your advice!

@nordeend22

Thank you for your response Joseph! Sorry, but one more question!

Even though you didn't contribute as much for the October test (in terms of time-wise), you weren't worried about a possibility that you may not retain some important skills you learned but were confident of what you got?

@nordeend22

So for your October test, what did you primarily work on besides two PTs a week? What would you say as your average study time per week?

@yjhong9335 Thank you so much for your response. I really appreciate it! :D

For me, POE was the most effective method to approach this question. I usually am able to find gaps in arguments before attacking problems, but this one was an exception.

How did you guys solve this question to get it right?

@yjhong9335

I feel the same way about redoing reading passages. Even though I don't remember what questions are about, rereading the passage definitely feels easier. How did you overcome this problem while studying for a retake?

Looking at (C) in a contrapositive manner would help you more to see why (C) is a correct answer: "if the use of the predators has proven adequate, then insecticides should not be used."

I see that there is no conditional statement given in (A). We need one because the premise in the stimulus is a conditional statement. Another problem is that (A)'s conclusion deals with relativity while the argument doesn't.

Definitely. I thought there are several tricky answer choices. I treat (A) as an additional premise that supports the conclusion along with those two other premises given in the stimulus!

I agree that (B) strengthens the argument :)

and also for (C), I think it's out of scope because while the argument deals with children who slept with night-lights as infants, (C) is dealing with children "who slept with night-lights when they were OLDER." So the author and (C) are dealing with different subjects!

Waiting for this is killing me... Because I am so nervous already, I feel like my heart will explode before I get to see my score tonight...