I got this right through elimination.

I didn't catch that B is useless because the stim tells us that the two towns temperatures move in lock-step. That makes it obviously the right answer.

The other answers were all plausible. AND all the other answers compare the two towns and makes them different somehow. B just talks about Charlesville and remains silent on Taychester. Maybe Taychester does that too? Which is, of course, what the stimulus already implies.

This is a bullshit question. 1) about the Greek play / ancient Greece problem, and 2) what indicates that Demosthenes was reading silently?

Demosthenes was expressing his amazement. I figured he was audibly doing so, because how else does one express amazement in a way that an audience could understand what's happening? Are we supposed to believe he was just up on stage wiggling his eyebrows where nobody in the audience could see him? That doesn't make any sense. 

He wasn't reading aloud, or else his buddy wouldn't need to ask him for information, but definitely he was up there going "Wow. Hmm. That's crazy. I'm amazed."

I negated B by imagining there was a historical reenactment at that site by modern actors and the actors forgot the tools on accident. 

Then I imagined a team of archaeologists wandering by thinking they've discovered irrefutable proof that canoes were made 5000 years ago. 

I did not diagram these, but dinged C intuitively. C is saying is saying that frogs are the only animals in the lagoon, but it doesn't preclude frogs from being elsewhere on the island.

I knew I wanted a situation where we'd only discovered frogs in one place, and then made a conclusion assuming they weren't anywhere else.

Since frogs could be elsewhere on the island, and owls hunt all over the island, then it's possible owls are eating frogs not from the lagoon.

I passed over A, but didn't ding it, because I thought that the legislation may have been the impetus behind the technological innovations.

I incorrectly chose C because I didn't read closely enough to see that it was talking about work-related injuries in general, rather than injuries specific to the high risk industries.

Caught my mistake on blind review, but still got it wrong. If I'd dinged C like I should have then A would have been the only remaining reasonable answer.

Got this right.

I just finished a passage about the power of negative evidence. The example was: you can have a million white swans, but that will never prove that black swans don't exist. One black swan, however, disproves the hypothesis that there are only white swans. 

So here you can see that if Selena has psychic powers, then obvi it's possible. But if Selena doesn't have psychic powers then we can't say anything because Selena is just like everyone else. She's just another white swan, in the analogy above. We needed an argument that ruled out the possibility of someone else still having it, or rather, told us that black swans don't exist. 

I got this right, but did not see the argument very clearly. I didn't clock the significance of the "same location" premise. I thought "what if that virus always locks into the same location regardless of when it infects?"

I got that the assumption was that they'd both gotten it from a common ancestor. My first thought was "why couldn't they have both gotten it independently at some point along the way?"

So I knew I had to defend the argument from the idea that they'd gotten the virus independently. 

A and B didn't seem wrong or right. C jumped out at me because it gave me a reason why the birds couldn't have gotten the virus independently. 

If you’re missing questions randomly then that indicates to me that you’ve got a problem with your fundamentals. All the LR questions really just test your ability to make associations, but they’ll make it harder with confusing language and erroneously referring to different sets of groups between the premise and conclusion and stuff like that. What do your analytics say are your priority question types?

Perhaps the problem lies in your ability to read and understand the argument? Or perhaps you’re not picking up when they erroneously change terms like referring to rainbow trout in the premise but make a conclusion about trout in general? Might be time to work through the core curriculum again.

I got this wrong because I wasn't thinking about some classic things that weaken / strengthen causal relationships.

Weaken relationships? When you have cause without purported effect, or effect without cause.

Strengthen relationships? You have effect following purported cause. When you can get rid of confounding variables / alternative explanations and show that only your purported cause could have triggered the effect

So here we had soot + stuff = ailment, but author says it's not soot. How can we find out? C gives us a world where we only have soot and not other stuff. We have cause (soot) and effect (ailment). This strengthens the relationship between soot and ailments and weakens the conclusion that it's other stuff causing ailments.

I feel like for these types of parallel flaw types of questions that don't use strict logical forms / flaws it really helps to just view the flaw at like 30,000 feet and hold onto that.

The big problem here is making a universal claim based on like one example, and also the "all good no bad" made it uniquely bad.

I got it right, but didn't eliminate the comparative wrong answers because I wasn't holding in my mind the flaw and the mechanics of the reasoning while I went through the ACs.

The reasoning for eliminating A can be applied in the same way to eliminate D.

Both require an assumption about energy use in the same way. While I see the logic that D is MORE supported, I maintain that this is a shit question.

I really missed the boat on this one. I didn't fully appreciate that this was simply a correlation type question, so the obvious flaw in answer E didn't jump out at me.

Instead I overthought and picked A on the vague idea that this was actually some kind of temporal flaw, where it wasn't actually adults who stopped, rather the teenagers who later became adults didn't start.

E is obviously right, and A needs a dozen unsupported assumptions just to make it passable.