Yep same here, but I got it eventually. I started with the preventing of harm part. I realized that there had to be a a lot of preventing harm. because that's the point of the rule right, to prevent harm. Then the next part of the statement is this causing of harm, which is bad right. You don't want to cause harm. So the statement is saying these rules would do more of this good thing of preventing harm then it would do of this bad thing of causing harm. And we're saying this about "fair rules that could effectively be used to prescribe which side of the road to drive on" This is certainly something our author would agree with and so that makes it the right answer. But yeah that was worded in such a difficult way. I originally pickled "A" but flagged it, I had some time at the end and went back and realized I didn't like A very much, it's too strong and so I really worked out what C was saying and once I did that I knew it was right.

That's just not what cause/effect flaws look like. It's a real stretch to say what you described is a cause/effect flaw. I think the statements are more separate than that, you identified the conclusion, but the stuff after is more of just an explanation than a true cause/effect relationship. If you look at questions where the correct answer is this cause/effect flaw, they look really different.

It was a hard questions. The problem with E is also that while the argument does presume that other great works affects the ability to derive enjoyment from contemporary works, that in itself is not the issue with the argument.

I disagree. I got this question correct by doing exactly what he did. You just figure out what role each of the 3 sentences plays in the argument, you realize the 2nd one is the conclusion and there you go, B is basically a copy. There isn't much more in depth you can go. He actually went more in depth than I did when he explained why D was wrong. This question is difficult because you have to realize the first sentence plays no role in the argument, it's not a premise or conclusion, it just sets the argument up.

E is incorrect because the phrase "certain forms of communication" is too weak and may not apply to TV. B for sure includes TV in this case by using the word "anything" and thus bridges the gap that we need.

This is a great example of a question where knowing necessary assumption questions want weak language helps a lot. It seems like C is a very attractive wrong answer choice, but C is easy to eliminate just by realizing that it's too strongly worded, which is a red flag for necessary assumption questions. The word "never" in answer choice C completely kills it, it's simply not necessary to have such a high burden of proof. E is much more moderately worded, saying that we should balance between these 2 things. This strategy won't completely answer the question for you, but it helps a lot.

Yeah you can't mix up terms just like that. Not having standardized prices is not the same as a buyer not being able to know what the worth of an item.

I wouldn't. If you're trying to get the questions right with more time, in other words not under strict test day conditions, then I would go sentence by sentence and make sure you understand everything, then when you're done repeat to yourself out loud what the passage is saying in simple language. Then read the question and try to go in with an understanding of what the correct answer might look like. If you're trying to do like you would on a test you don't have time to map it out really.

My anticipation for this question was "but what if the works of one of those contemporary artists fills a specific niche that the vast majority of other artworks don't satisfy". This isn't exactly what D says but it works toward the same idea, which is that just because there are already tons of great artistic works doesn't mean all contemporary artists are wrong in thinking they can also aesthetically please someone. So my anticipation was good enough to lead me to D, though I still found E tempting. Maybe this helps someone.

Maybe this isn't helpful but I didn't even bother really trying to go deep into what the argument is saying. If you think about the fact that you have at the most really about 2 minutes to do this question, I'm not sure it's worth it. You would have to be insanely good to really understand this stimulus and find the right answer in 2 minutes, after already doing 22 questions. I kind of had a surface level idea of the argument and then just based on the phrasing B really stood out to me, I was actually pretty confident it was correct, it wasn't a blind guess, even though I didn't understand the argument very well. Just going from B you can make a checklist, is that phrase an observation, yet it is, is it a concession, yes it is, is it ultimately insufficient to justify this bad argument, yes it is, we know that from the last sentence and the word "mistake" in the first sentence. If we go to to AC A for example "it is a claim for which the argument attempts to provide justification", it's clearly not doing that, you don't even really need to understand the argument to see that's not the case.

I thought E was completely wrong because the whole point is that these monarchs weren't forced to respect property rights. Could you be talking about the post-Glorious Revolution parliament instead of the monarchs?

I got this question right but I thought it was super hard so I hoped JY would help but he didn't really. The difficult part about this question to me is just understanding what is being said, instead JY focuses on the lawgic. When I read this part about a section about ceasing to regard an action as being freely performed, I knew it had to be relevant because why would they say it, but it was just very hard to figure out what that even means and why it's relevant to the first part of the stimulus. I think if you focuses on just breaking down the English into something understandable, that would be a better explanation.

I'm taking in April, currently scoring in the high 160s to low 170s, but willing to give it a try.

This is just a RC question. If you're focused and read carefully, you should get it right. I agree it's a mean trick though.

The first part is problematic, it can't be true, because if it is that means investment is decreasing and we are told that isn't happening. The alternative, the "or" with A straight up says investment is decreasing, however we know this is not happening so this is problematic as well which is why A is correct, both of the situations cannot be true. However with D the alternative is that prices are remaining constant. That's perfectly acceptable, we have no idea what happens if prices remain constant. We are satisfying the necessary condition. Prices remaining constant doesn't imply anything. So this 2nd half of D could be true, thus D could be true, thus it's incorrect.

It seems like people are picking E because they interpret "almost every Wednesday" to mean all Wednesdays? But you can have half-price coffee on Wednesdays even if there is no poetry reading. So it actually could be every Wednesday.

You have to look for the patterns in answer choices. Reversing the correlation is one of the oldest tricks in the book. As soon as I saw that I knew E was right. Even if some of the other options seem tricky or you're not exactly sure what they're saying, if you can spot the pattern the other ACs should have no sway over you.

Huh? I looked at this question again, can you tell me the issue? E is clearly right, I don't see what's wrong the question.

You're definitely not a lost cause. I'm not much of a success story, my first ever practice test was a 147 and this morning I got a 163 from November. Take that for what you want. There are definitely people who have gone from 140s to 170s. I think if your real test is notably lower than your practice test averages, you need to really self reflect on your study process and why that is. And go from there. Is it anxiety? Are you not properly simulating real conditions? Are you doing review that isn't actually helping very much? I wouldn't just passively follow 7Sage, take a hard look at your study process and go from there.

7Sage has helped a lot of people including myself. So it's not an inherent problem with the program. It might not be the right program for you, in which case you should ask yourself why, and what might be a better alternative. You should also self reflect on your study process, why isn't it working for you. Studying and working full time is very challenging and commendable, but it is possible to still see big increases doing this. If you want I could go over a few questions with you.

Hey so does the 4 of us sound good? Can we do sometime this afternoon? Say 1pm EST? I'm not sure exactly how to set it up, if one of you guys know and is willing to do it I would really appreciate it.

It ends up being irrelevant but I think you should only realize this once you go through the answer choices and arrive to D. There's no reason to go into answering the question assuming the first part doesn't matter.

Yes? It's still not a must be true because we only know that the city has the right to clear the snow, and they they will bill the owner if they do. But that doesn't mean they always will clear the snow.