Yes...I guess.
I thought arguments could miss or do not consider some possibilities relating to the conclusion...but if it is not addressed, it's either 1) not related to the conclusion 2) there is another flaw which the argument misses...right?
Take a break from full PT. That's what I did recently. Take full sections of older tests instead and focus on drilling your weak spots. In a few weeks, try a full test again.
... important thing isn't the PT, it's all the shit you ... 've got to do after the PT ... . If you're doing it right, that's a ... two weeks before my next PT). Even when I started averaging ... in the high 170's though, two a week is ...
... thing isn't the PT, it's all the shit you ... 've got to do after the PT ... . If you're doing it right, that's ... . BR sucks but it's worth it. @"Wind-Up ... on to the next PT without completing the BR ... for the initial PT you'll potentially make ...
Just a correction: 72 does not have a circular. 72 has what can readily be described as a pattern game, Game 4. 75 Game 4 is a bit odd: I didn't like it. 77 Game 3 is odd. Finally, PT 79 Game 4 is odd.
@dennisgerrard said:
I reviewed the PT76 LR section today and can't find the experimental section for LR. I had five sections on my PT76 while the 7sage only have four sections' explanation. Any idea?
@nantesorkestar said:
I just can't see any assumptions the argument is making. In my opinion, C might weaken the argument if the insertion occurs at a random spot. Doesn't this contradict that the fragments are in the same location?