I was stuck between A and B and had decided B was a red herring. The way I saw it, the whole "can we afford not to?" thing is just a bit of political rhetoric thrown in at the end but is not like a premise or conclusion ( I took "I respectfully disagree" to be the conclusion); it doesn't really add anything to his argument besides being punchy. You could cut that part off and it would all be the same. I still think the flaw in his argument is being emotional/sentimental.

Ok I had (c) bubbled in and then changed it because I was overthinking. I get that it's a part/whole issue but I ended up going with (e) because I thought that they were hinting at the fact that the firm only "primarily specializes in criminal law" i.e., that not everyone there does criminal law thus the "generalization based upon a selection" in E is that everyone at the firm does criminal law, which isn't necessarily true, making it make sense that a divorce lawyer would work there. This is also why I thought that the line about the "group as a whole" in B was untrue because it isn't necessarily true that all lawyers there do criminal law.

I guess I was too deep in the weeds to realize that this wasn't the flaw that it was asking about but it tripped me up.

Okay help on #18 PLEASE. I didn't like any of the other choices but E just does not seem to weaken it. They way I see it is that if E is right and say, only 49 out of every 100 new species survive in the tropics, the theory still holds as long as say 2 out of every 100 new species survive in the arctic. It's totally fine for MOST of the new species to be dying as long as more are living than are in the arctic. What am I missing here?

There will be one this Saturday, right? I didn't see it posted yet

I'm having trouble seeing why for13 AC A is wrong. I can see why B is right, but it clearly mentions that she lacquered brick. It didn't seem to me that she NEEDED to have had lacquered steel to satisfy the principle being stated when we already know she lacquered brick. Any thoughts?

This bothered me so much. Why is a "singer's opera" one where the MUSIC (not poetry) is primary? Also, colloquially, we use the term music to include singing so it was difficult to keep correcting myself about that. Not to mention that saying music is primary over "other factors" is so unclear. I was thinking a singer's opera would be one where music (inclusive of singing) was primary over these other factors (set design, costuming, staging, whatever). I understand how I'm wrong but this whole section felt like such an uphill battle. :/

just messaged you! I'd really love a study group!!

I'm in Raleigh and would love to be in a group!!

For Q27, AC A, it still makes zero sense to me that Passage B is "sketching a view that it does not necessarily endorse." It seems to me clear from the language choice in every sentence of the last paragraph that the author believes we should return land to Native Americans. I don't get why JY circles the word "Ideally" as evidence of the author putting distance between herself and the argument, that seems to me to do the opposite. Or at least to the extent that she's putting distance there it's really not much distance. What am I missing??