... one sufficiency-neccesity confusion per PT :joy:
... S4.Q21(★★★); PT23.S2.Q19(★★★★); PT23.S3.Q17(★★); PT24.S2.Q23 (★★★★); PT30 ... (★★★★★); PT64.S1.Q24 (★★★★); PT67.S2.Q09 (★★); PT68.S3.Q21 (★★★★★); ... now but something like PT30.S2.Q25 (★★★★) may be ...
Not quite sure if this is the appropriate category to ask this question, but here goes...
I just finished the "Intro to Arguments" lesson and wanted more practice, so I returned to the June 2007 Practice Test. As I went through Section 2, I ...
If anyone wants to review PT 68 with me tomorrow (Friday) over google hangout/skype. private message me and we can get started. Logical reasoning, both sections.
* Premise:
- TV news watchers have NO expectations of careful discussion of public issues.
- newspaper readers have the expectation of careful discussion of public issues.
* Conclusion: In contrast to regular newspaper ...
I took PT 46 yesterday after upgrading my ... LG, and -1 RC. On PT 50 I got annihilated on ... , -1 RC from -14 LR..). PT 51 was "in between" 50 ... LR than I did on PT 50 but not as well ... as I did on PT 46 (-6 LR).
... so basically, I wrote a pt a few weeks ago only ... got my 145 from todays pt, but with my BR im ... section (which I got like 9-10 right on - didnt even ... up my BR of this PT fully tomorrow morning, but I ...
... .
I'll have a PT where I bomb reading comp ...
I'll have a pt where I bomb an LR ... />
Almost all of my PT's lately have been like ... , I cannot put a full PT together. I'll do good ... from section to section per PT to PT. anyone else having this ...