thinking of this as "which of these answers would completely destroy the argument if not true"
Doesn't B provide reasons to believe an alternative hypothesis (that something else eliminated the diseases) is false
#help #feedback
Why do we even need the subconclusion 3? Don't 1,2,4 sufficiently support 5 such that it's a valid argument without 3 being stated? You could also take 1,4 together and get a different subconclusion (say, 3b) that All dogs are cute, then combine that with 2 to get 5. But neither needs to be stated because both 3 and 3b necessarily follow from the premises in 1,2,4. Perhaps will learn more about significance of having subconclusions, but for now seems a redundant summary made for clarity in argumentation. Is that accurate, or is there a validity reason it's necessary to explicitly spell out a sub-conclusion?
If I struggle with the context/strategy switching from one section type to another, is there a way to practice that other than the full length tests? Like if I wanted to do a 27Q RC and then a 26Q LR, or even two RC passages and then immediately go into the first 15 LR?
Seems like only option would be to start and not finish a prep test, but then it would mess up your analytics.
This is maybe a little out of left field, but an analytic leveraging PCA (principle component analysis) to bucket 7sage users and then suggest drills based on classification seems like conceptually it could really helpful in identifying what to spend time on to study most effectively. Basically, if you're able to group students using the super-rich datasets you've got, and then compare PT improvement for students within those groups based on different drill histories it could help identify what drilling techniques work best for each student's "type" -- it seems like peoples' difficulties in some ways fall into categories, and this could be a cool way to leverage the data of other students in your archetype.