Let me try to break down the argument. This is a SA question, the argument concludes that eighteenth century chemistry would have been more advanced than it actually was if seventeenth century alchemists would have published the results of their experiments. Why? we are told that Newton (as an example) had conducted some unsuccessful experiments.

In SA question, we are trying to bridge up a gap between premise and conclusion, and (B) did a good job by building up a bridge between publishing the experiments (whether successful or not) and advances in science.

As regards to your question, I think we can totally assume that if it is available for review, then it is already published.

As for (A), I think your reasoning is correct. We are trying to link up the premise and the conclusion, and the premise part in this AC is just totally wrong, where did the "reluctance of historians to acknowledge the failures of ..." even coming from.

Great idea! please count me in!

Hi

I think (D) would be too weak to really have any impact on the argument. First of all, "plan to do sth" sounds too weak for me since they could totally plan for sth without doing it or countries could still fail to train new workers even if they implement their plan. In addition, it may take years to train those new workers to become highly-skilled workers, so we don't know when will they replace those emigrants. In this case, skilled workers remain in EE could still be in high demand in their countries.

On the other hand, (B) is much more straight- forward by telling us that although supply for skilled workers is down, demand is also decreasing. So, the conclusion no longer stand.

Hope this help!

Thanks for the webinar!

I would like to see a blog post about the differences of the application process between a international students with undergraduate degree outside U.S. and other applicants who hold a degree in a US university.

Perseverance is the secret to all triumphs!!!

Parallel argument: In a controlled study, blindfolded volunteers were divided evenly into four groups. Each volunteer tasted Coco bubble tea and one of four competing bubble teas, each group tasting a different bubble tea. Most of the volunteers preferred Coco bubble tea to the competing bubble tea tasted. This shows that Coco bubble tea has a more favorable response from customers than any of the competing bubble tea tasted.

The language here has made the flaw really hard to identify...

Parallel argument: The online recipe for the newly launce cheesecake is inaccurate in many different ways. So, it will not as effectively attract the sort of cheesecake lovers likely to keep coming back to our cakeshop for the new cheesecake as would the recipe that our chef favored; cheesecake lovers who have the first bite of the new cheesecake would know it's not good and thus would be highly unlikely to come back again.

oh wow this is awesome!!!!! Congratulations ~~

I love reading your posts a lot cuz it is always inspiring!

I am also interested !!!

I vote for "How to Write a Personal Statement: Story Basics", it really helps to get a clearer picture on how to write a good personal statement.

Both (D) and (E) are not compatible with the requirement cited in the stimulus, which is the fact that physicians are already subject to report gunshot wounds and certain infectious diseases to health authorities. According to the stimulus, this exceptions is ethical. AC(D) and (E) would make this exception unethical, and this is not what question stem asked us to do.

I am still quite confused by (B), by choosing (B), we are assuming there is an overlap between "most explanatory powerful theory of the science" and "most scientific theories are posited solely on theoretical grounds". Why should we assume an overlap here?

#help (Added by Admin)

WOWW Congratulations!!!

Your story truly inspired me !!! Congratulations !!!!

oh wow! this is amazing !! congratulations!

I think in AC (D), even if we change it into that "most drivers did not try to get into accident intentionally", it still would not hurt the argument by negating it since the negation of "most" is "some". So even if some drivers trying to get into accidents intentionally, it is still possible that "most" accidents are prevented. Please correct me I I am wrong!

Congratulation !!!

Could someone please explain to me why in AC (D), if it were to say "5 of male cats that did not have disease X have nucleus as large or even larger than that of females", it would be a good weakener since it directly contradict the premise just as JY said in the video ? I thought correlation allows non-conformity...

Thank you for being so honest Sami !

I am also on the same boat ... and your word really encourage me !!!

@akikookmt881 hi ! Thanks for the tagging ! Yes I am also interested in it but since I also I lived outside US so couldn't make it to the session ! Please count me in for the separate session !

Really interested !!

@akikookmt881 @ji330 @ji330 @ji330 thank you all for the responses and suggestions !! It helps me a lot to decide whether to cancel it or not ! Thank you so much !

Interested !!!