@SpencerY i end up just looking up the phrase itself with ctrl f and just see if it matches it's inside the referenced paragraph. sometimes ill quickly gloss over counting the sentences by looking at the # of periods if the phrase is mentioned multiple times in that paragraph, but that's what usually helps me.

I think I understand now why E is wrong. I didn't watch JY's explanation, but from the written explanation, E is dismissed because it says Gilman's view isn't a version of a scientific theory. At first, I didn't understand and agreed with a few comments on why that's BS because the correct answer in #21 has the words "Gilman's version..." etc. But now I see why they used the word "version" in #21 and not here.

In #21, the correct answer says "Gilman's version of SOCIAL Darwinism"...This is correct because Darwin's theory of evolution did not directly apply to social ideology. This is explicitly stated in the beginning of paragraph 1. It was translated by intellectuals (Social Darwinists) into social language.

In the second paragraph, it says "Gilman identified herself with this latter ideological camp..." (The latter camp is part of the group of Social Darwinists that did that translation)

Those Social Darwinists applied the scientific theory into a social conversation, and the second paragraph explicitly states Gilman did that too (1st sentence)

The Last paragraph also says "In both her fiction and her social theory..."

I can understand if it's still confusing on whether that means she had her own version of a social theory or not. I still think it counts that she did because it says she identified herself with that 2nd group of Social Darwinists, and then she basically extrapolated on that. It wasn't just a debate for her, she had a whole ethical vision and that it's an ethical responsibility. I think that thorough explanation of her extrapolation in the passage constitutes as her own "version" of a social theory.

So for #26, choice E, when it says the passage is described as an "...intro to a general type of scientific theory, CLARIFIED by a detailed presentation of one writer's version of THAT theory" -it is wrong. The word "that" is referring to the general type of scientific theory mentioned (Darwin's Theory of Evolution). We know she had her own version but it wasn't a version of a the actual Theory of Evolution. It was a social theory that she applied that scientific theory to. Plus, she never clarifies the scientific theory. She doesn't talk about the science or make it easier for us to understand the theory of evolution. So the clarifying part I think makes it especially wrong.

Also -- When i was stuck between B and E, i thought B sounded good but the "consequences" part really threw me off because it sounded overly negative. The definition of consequences does not describe it as something necessarily "bad". It just means a "result or effect, an outcome that follows an action or event". So we could argue that Social Darwinism is a consequence of Darwinism, because it resulted after it. And there is a debate, or an intellectual controversy, that happened. All in all, these are consequences of a scientific theory.

Hope this helped someone.

@Mjamail i get how the "strong" seems like a stretch, that's what i thought too at first. But i think what helps is that the author never explicitly says that the Japanese community ties are "weak". The author just says they have "weakened". So they could very well still be strong, just maybe not as strong as it was 30 years ago. You feel me?

Additionally, we can get an implication that the author thinks their ties are strong where it is mentioned "Fugita and O'Brien conclude that assimilation to US culture increased among Japanese Americans over three generations, but that a sense of ethnic community endured."

It's ok to make a modest inference that their community ties were strong, because it endured still even with the increase of assimilation in American culture

Being aware of those two things helped me understand why B is correct.

Okay I got this question wrong bc I immediately saw B and thought "Oh! it is reversing sufficiency for necessary, WRONGO!" Big mistake. This question is very sophisticated so please PAY ATTENTION:

Look at the wording in the stimulus. If we find out WHETHER Selena's claim is true essentially means, her claim could be true or false.

We are considering TWO outcomes that Yes -(she could have powers) or No - (not have powers)

That will determine the WHETHER it is possible to have psychic powers , i.e., Yes or No! Another TWO outcomes!

So, if her claim IS true, then obviously psychic powers are possible. But now what about if her claim is false? Does that mean if she doesn't have powers, it isn't possible? NO.

We get stuck because the stim gives us ~nothing~ for that outcome.

It does NOT logically follow that If Selena does -not- have powers, it is -not- possible in general to have powers. Maybe someone else could have them, like her neighbor! This is the gap. --

The sufficient being true guarantees the necessary outcome. Because obviously if Selena's got powers, that makes it possible to have them.

But if the sufficient condition is absent, we cannot infer that the necessary is absent--aka it is not possible and essentially no one else can have the powers. This is why the argument isn't logical. In order for the argument to follow logically - something needs to be assumed to fill that gap--

We need to somehow show that Selena's claim being true is NECESSARY to having powers at all. That is exactly what B does. It straight up says "If it is possible to have psychic powers, then she has them".

Now, we have successfully eliminated the outcome that powers are still possible even if Selena does not have them. Because now her having powers is necessary to psychic powers being possible in the first place.