I'm trying to identify flaws. is PT 56 S3 Q10 an equivocation flaw; can you use more than a word but a concept in this type of flaw?
Is PT 52 S3 Q4 a false appeal flaw?
Is PT 54 S4 Q16 an implication flaw ?
thanks
... to do every game from PT35 and below at a minimum ... . Doing each game in any PT 4 times will then take ... . If you do that for 35 PTs that will take you ...
... that in mind. IMO, from PT35-74, I would definitely save ... timed sections. Although full timed PT'ing are important, I think ... /timing into 4/5 section PT's.
I second @"Nilesh S"
I'm pretty sure it would be against rules to post actual screenshots of the stimulus. But if you use referencing such as "PT35 S1 Q15" and then post your question about it, then it should be alright.
... started the curiculum? If not, PT35 will do in a pinch ... of time between taking your PT and BRing will depend on ... try BRing right after the PT + meal break. Or, at least ... incredibly difficult to review a PT "all at once." You'll ...
... whatnot, you can take a pt and see how you're ... hitting the game sections on 35 and under and foolproofing those ... all of the questions since PT35-the latest ones? (either timed ... or not timed)
Thanks guys :) Somewhat unrelated but could you say the same of the usefulness of doing earlier RC sections? I've heard that they're a lot easier in the earlier PTs, so is it better to focus on drilling RC sections that come after, say, the PT35 mark?