I guess through POE you are stuck with E, but I still feel like E is such a bad answer lol. It makes you assume that the surrounding towns didn't change their times/have starting times before 8:30AM, that most students in the surrounding regions did not go to Granville high school, etc. I put AC D, which is arguably probably weaker but I couldn't talk myself into writing E, I thought that the word 'rather' maybe implicated that accidents were moving from occurring in the morning to more in the evening. I get that's also wrong but E seems wrong too lol

For 17, I feel the reasoning is a bit meh. It "likely" leads to some convicted criminals receiving unwarranted sentence reductions, but the passage says that informants receive incentives like sentence reductions, but it doesn't have to be sentence reductions it can be other incentives. Therefore you have to accept that there is a jailhouse informant who received an unwarranted sentence reduction, which I feel like is a bit shaky. I interpreted C to mean that jurors are frequently subject to the burden of being required to weigh the various external factors when psychologically as humans we aren't predisposed to that. I don't think you have to make more assumptions than you do for E, but can someone talk me out of this? #help

The 180 curve tho....

I'm in Alberta, applying in 2021!! Would love to join a study group :)

Man this passage was rough lol

Lol this question broke my brain

I chose B but I hope this helps for others like me: B does not actually discount the support offered for the conclusion. Here's why: if the people who occupied the part of Eurasia closest to the Mastedon were nomadic, what does that have to do with the conclusion? They could have just been nomadic, the projectile could still have been from a more distant group. In weaken questions you're looking to really attack the support that the premises offered for the conclusion so, and answer choice that makes us consider that even given the evidence, we cannot be sure about the conclusion. Whether or not the close group was nomadic tells us nothing about the distant group.

For 10, I originally but A but changed it during blind review because the line was written in the context of the objection about judge's disguising their real reasoning. I interpreted it as the following: as long as no harm is due, and the judge knows this, they can disguise their real reasoning as long as they have a different written explanation that follows logically. Therefore, they can use this principle as a means of disguising their real reasoning. I'd love to hear thoughts about this question.

Can someone help me with D? While I understand what JY is saying, but the "usually" earn less (aka %51%51%) doesn't directly counter the the argument either does it? Because if over the past 3 decades (30 years) in 17 of those years the average age of the householder earner decreased, we don't know that was the case over those specific years mentioned in the stimulus. I'm not sure if I'm reading too much into this, but it's confusing when I know I need to be reading very carefully, but sometimes i might be paying too much attention to certain details.

#help (Added by Admin)

One question about A though, the stimulus says that this trend occurs 'across the various regions' of Europe and North American - not SOME reason, but the. This is what made me question A, because if this is a trend across regions all around Europe and North America, why would the availability of jobs in certain locations be an issue?

#help (Added by Admin)

I got this wrong during BR! I switched from B to C lol because when I gave it more thought, I read C to mean that you cannot directly observe altruism from the data... because they may have been lying. Reading it again I realize they mean that you can never directly observe altruism in general hahahahah

This is such a confusing question, but I hope this helps:

Double-blind studies are done to determine the efficacy of a drug (ie. whether or not it will produce the intended result). M says that we cannot perform a double-blind test because "various effects" will cause the scientists to know who has received the drug and who has received the placebo. E counters M by saying that M is wrong because M is assuming that they know the outcome of the study --> ie. whether or not the drug works. However, M does not have to be referring only to the THERAPEUTIC effects of the drug, and could rather be talking about the side effects. Like someone else said, AC C could totally be what M is assuming, but that is not what E is misinterpreting. E is focused on M's use of "various effects."

Don't worry I got this one wrong too lol

Is it stupid to focus on the word 'feasible' in the second last sentence? I wanted to pick D, but I thought that the fact that it had not been tested under all feasible conditions (which I interpreted as possible right now) then that means it has not been confirmed to the extend that science allows. Yes the first sentence says that it has not been falsified by any tests done, but what if there are more possible experiments we just haven't done yet that science is capable of? #help

Is it just a semantic for me to focus on the discrepancy for the word "recover" and "harm less"? Because I became fixated on that and felt like B was the only answer that sounded relatively right but included the idea that the wildlife was likely to recover, rather than just be harmed less.

#help