I understand why A makes sense after the explanation. But my reading of the stimulus came down to the "less sleep is not unhealthy" conclusion, and my read was that answer choice E's statement that the argument overlooks other potential negatives of less sleep made sense.

If you're still recruiting, let me know!

Breaking down the parallel argument really helped me. Thank you. I did think that A was somewhat consistent with the conclusion, though? It doesn't line up with the premise, but the idea that there are SOME people who are happier than those without a pet would seem to play into the phrasing that "any person" would do well to consider not getting a pet.

I had initially selected B because I thought that the fact that the grouse was diseased and was not being chosen was evidence of the hypothesis working, regardless of the antibiotics working or not. I see why D adds on a physical component that plays into the visualist argument, though.

I am right there with you. Like the last commenter, I am also working on low res summaries. I'm running drills with three passages each, one at a level 3, one at a level 4, and another at a level 5. I've ran 10 of these drills in the last ten days and I'm getting a lot of good results and internalizing a little bit more about what details are important to include on my low res summaries and what is not. Even the questions I'm getting wrong are really close calls, where maybe I just didn't fully read the question or missed on one minute detail of the passage. We got this!

Your analysis of question 17 really clicked with me. I was confused because I didn't see anything indicating convicted criminals would receive a reduced sentence until you made the connection that jailhouse inmates are considered to be convicted criminals. That lack of understanding was why I went with answer choice C in the first place

25 was the one I most struggle with reconciling. After watching the video, I understood why AC E was correct, because you have to think back to what the main idea was, which was to theorize that our universe is the result of an energy fluctuation in a high entropy multiverse. I went for answer choice B, though, because of the last sentence of the passage saying that "(the big bang) is likely not even a unique event." I guess there is some leeway in saying that the physicists in the first paragraph never said that the big bang was a unique event, but it certainly felt like paragraph 2 was saying that Carroll and Chen were challenging the conception that the Big Bang was a unique event, and that the author then adopted that at the end of the passage.

I'm interested too, but I'm CST.