also a big HP manic. If you loved HP, I would recommend the Magicians series. It is basically adult HP+Narnia woven into one amazing story.

@mattdarephd78 damn, did you also have the question re the disagreement on development of land

I had an exp LR and had a question about zebra finches and some other bird and genes/chromosomes diverging? But can't remember what other questions that was included with. Can someone confirm if this was an exp sec? I thought this sec was slightlyy harder

This has happened to me in cycles through out my studying. I've been studying for over 2 years now. I'd be scoring very high for about 7 tests in a row, and then my scores would start to dip 6/7 points, and then I would have spotty test scores with a score range of about 10 points (wtf), and then the scores would level out back to my high range for a while, and then dip and etc. Needless to say, it's been a shitty emotional rollercoaster.

It's my last take and for both takes, I've scored well out of my PTing range, and for both takes, I thought I walked out thinking I had done fine. Given my terrible, terrible track record, I'm focusing on just settling my nerves, clearing out brain for all the knowledge to meld and leaving room for my neurons to fire correctly (or whatever else they do up there) and focusing on the individual starred questions from past PT/BRs.

Idk what to tell you. Brains are a mystery but just ignore this PT. It's just a number and it doesn't prove anything about what you've learned so far. You know what you've learned and you know you're capable of hitting those scores bc you've done it before. When you see your fresh test, it'll be easier in fact, because your brain won't have to parse through all the different times you've seen the test and it won't harp on wrong answers because you won't have any memory of the fresh question! The brain gears will just kick into place, just like you've been training them to do.

That, above, is at least what I tell myself everyday (insert sad smile here). Hang in there!!

good god, wut is this.

I thought B was also wrong because it is discussing a conception of human needs (the first camp), and the stimulus does not clarify whether the first camp is relied upon more than the second camp, or if it's too much.

ok this is everything here bc I just scored C2 (which I heard was supposed to be relatively easy) andddddd I blew it. So I instinctively came to this forum, but got caught up in HONY bc of that latest post from JY and then I started reading about vets struggling from PTSD and got a perspective check, and came back here and found this thread and I feel like I'm in good company.

Taking the rest of the night and tomorrow off - see ya

thanks, that was immensely helpful. It's frustrating that I failed to see that real life application because I was seeing this only in terms of lawgic: ~o --> ~p and I was so sure that the contrapositive was supposed to help bridge P & O ughhh

thanks again @torahisland910

@yoonaleeabc303 - sorry, not sure if I'm getting your question, can you elaborate?

The application tells us that Delacruze is fully qualified and this is how we can start to line up the pieces with the help of E to get to the conclusion we should not hire Krall.

This question gives us a principle and a scenario where the principle has been applied, but the scenario is missing a piece so we have to fill in the missing part to justify the application.

Principle:

fully qualified candidates do NOT currently work at Arvue --> hire who would be most productive

Application:

Arvue should not hire Krall because Delacruze is a fully qualified candidate

What additional details do we need to provide to this scenario so as to explain why we should not hire Krall? From the given principle, we cannot provide a case where we can prove that Krall should NOT be hired because the contrapositive of the principle doesn't allow us to work out that conclusion. But the principle does allow us to arrive at the conclusion that Delacruze should be hired (by adding in some additional assumptions).

By telling us that Delacruze is a fully qualified candidate, the application triggers half of our sufficient condition. If we can plug-in additional details to fit the rest of the principle, then we can make the case that Delacruze should be hired, not Krall. Match up the rest of the conditional. Delacruze is a fully qualified candidate who does NOT currently work at Arvue AND he's someone who would be most productive. If we assume this, we can conclude that Arvue should hire Delacruze. E captures this additional detail that fills in the missing piece of the application.

TBH, I definitely did not go through this reasoning during PT, just POE. But if you can have a solid understanding of the conditional reasoning in the principle, and understand the facts provided in the application, going through the answer choices is an efficient way to get through this problem.

What were you guys wavering between in PT78 S1 Q6? I think the question that was the most WTF for me was S3 Q23.

lol but I'm nervous now bc I don't know if I'm seeing the overall trend - WHAT ELSE AM I MISSING?!

Just as how JY points out "loss in aesthetic quality" is not discussed by Carl, I had an issue with D in that Carl does not discuss the "accessibility of premodern plays." But perhaps I should be more comfortable with D, as removing the "accessibility" aspect does not impact the content of D, is that correct?

I chose D during my PT (mostly because I paid little attention to A) and chose A during blind review because I thought it was connecting the "promise" and "ought" portions of the argument. But now I see that A doesn't necessarily bridge the two because negating A would read (ought & promise) and that doesn't wreck the argument as D the blocker would if negated.

I'm trying to see if there is a better bridging answer that would work here, but in the face of D, I can't think of anything to work as a bridge between ought and promise (I feel like there should be one). Did anyone else struggle with A?

NVM it's all the same because logic.

girl, that is NOT a miracle, that is the result of dedication!! congrats!!!

can someone DM me the answer to that MBT though so I can confirm I'm right?

UGHHHH I CAN'T DO MONDAY. please have more of these!!

@yoonaleeabc303 thanks so much - I definitely see why E is wrong - EUREKA.

Clearly, I misread C because, this is how I understood C:

Two groups of animals at this time - hunted (100), not hunted (100). "Very few" of those not hunted (3) were extinct. So 97 in the not hunted group was fine.

And at that point, I just didn't see how C weakened the argument.

I'm trying to understand if this was a grammar problem or if I just didn't understand the stim? Thanks again, really appreciate your time.