Is this just me or the newer PTs have at least one difficult 3/4 question among question 10 to 15? I feel like things have been rather easier until question 15 before, but now the time-consuming ones are appearing earlier in LR sections.

RRE

need to resolve:

1. regular subscribers to newspaper that provide extensive coverage of election issues

are no better informed than

2. subscribers to newspaper that provide little coverage

C. regular subscribers to 1 barely read, could explain why they're insufficiently informed, and why they're no better than those newspapers w/ little coverage

E. distraction answer. make newspaper irrelevant, does not resolve the discrepancy.

1. we have no idea about how "other sources" contribute to their knowledge

2. we don't know how "most voters" relate to the subscribers

Thank you. I enjoy these v2 lessons more than v1. I have been studying for four months and flaw questions have always been tricky for me. These lessons help me realize which subset of flaw that I should practice on

got stuck on this one for two whole minutes because didn't figure out a key inference:

natural water available to bovines -> attract other mammals

contrapositive=> /other mammals ->/no natural water

Thus, we need to bear in mind that there is no natural water in the region

AC A states: /Domesticated -> /bovines to exist with no natural water

contrapositive=> bovines to exist with no natural water -> Domesticated

P1: bill passed -> neg. econ conseq.

P2: great leaders look for sound policy

------------------------------------------

CC: legislators should do the same by not voting for the bill

C is more explicit than A and D in terms of attacking the relationship between the premise with the conclusion.

The premise focuses on negative econ impact & looking for sound policy, and the CC says about not voting the bill. The argument does not specify why econ impact& "sound " policy should be causal with "not voting the bill"

NA

Background: the experiment gives managers coffee more than their normal amount

P1: faster at processing new info, less able to integrate it with past info

P2: successful management depends more on integrating than on speed

CC: drinking more coffee impairs overall management ability

Loophole: what is overall management ability composed of; what if other factors of the overall ability combined are more important than the integrating ability?

AC

C. in overall management abilities:

if other factors' importance: in total is 50% (each 10%);

integrating: 30%, speed: 20%;

If coffee could help all other factors, then it helps 50%+20%, impairs 30%;

The conclusion doesn't stand

D. assumes that the increase in other factors not mentioned do not outweigh the amount of decrease of the integrating ability

non-native speaker totally fucked by Q14 cuz I can't even recall what thermostat and thermometer mean :) after looking thermostat up, I can't even find a correct translation to my native language bc we simply don't use thermostat (or AC)

Hi there, according to the conclusion, the details of frightening experiences tend to be remembered more clearly than the nonfrightening.

I eliminated A by assuming that if there are 100 frightening experiences, and the most intense ones are 10, and those 10 experiences were NOT remembered clearly, due to the reversed effect in A.

However the conclusion still stands because the majority of the not-so-intense experiences were still remembered clearly. Thus A does not weaken the argument.

To put it in a nutshell A's problem is with "some", and the conclusion is a causal one not a conditional one.

Hope this helps

I take notes on wrong questions in my drills and PTs. I use goodnotes and freeform because I like to see the question (screenshots/export pdfs) side-by-side with the explanation, and this is one of the reasons I do not use the explanation note feature on 7sage anymore -- it's just to difficult to categorize and review (I have to click for questions, and there's almost no categorization)