I appreciate your optimism and am looking for the same. If you haven't found anybody PM me.

Brilliant breakdown! Thank you!

I am having the same trouble disqualifying AC A and concluding E is the flaw. I see the meteorologist argument that the climate is so complex that one explanation can't be used alone is a stronger counter than just appealing to authority. KingTChalla in his description of this argument does not believe the meteorologist has a premise to make a claim, but I clearly see his premise. The meteorologist to me is basically telling the statistician, "your argument is incomplete because more than one factor has to be taken into consideration when discussing climate." Also, I am confused by the later part of AC E "evaluating the merit of a putative counterexample." Who's putative counterexample? Technically, both the statistician's argument (Sun's luminosity controls land temp) and the Meteorologist's argument (system is so complex and can't be controlled by a single variable) sound putative.

I am going to have to mark this one and come back in a few months, maybe by then I will have some clarity.

This question got me, I originally liked AC E but it exactly restated a premise and I didn't believe #25 on the exam would be that easy so I choose A. I see now that the Conclusion can not be drawn because it neglects one of the main premises made, "no reporter knows any more about it (the accident) than any other reporter." Therefore, the conclusion simply can not follow, AC E is so simple because it just points out a forgotten premise.

Sounds great!

Yes, I am interested!