I've been struggling with questions like this. It's clear that the author is using an attack on the character of the writer, but that part where (A) says "as evidence that this person is not competent on matters of scientific substance" is not descriptively accurate. The author's argument doesn't mention R's competence on matters of scientific substance, it only tries to say the book doesn't merit professional attention.

(E) almost seems like a PSA answer choice, or no?

I feel like this explanation takes answer choice (E) as obvious too much for granted. (A) and (C) are clearly irrelevant, but (B), (D) and (E) all all deserve careful consideration. (B) is plausible because because we only know that the factors that create tornadoes haven't changed, we have no idea if the factors that influence tornado intensity have changed. If these latter factors have in fact changed and tornadoes have increased in average intensity, that would go a long way towards explaining the increase in recorded tornadoes, because more tornadoes would be obviously be noticed. A similar logic applies to (D). If the amount of property damage from tornadoes has grown substantially, that could definitely help explain why more are recorded, because more tornadoes would likely be noticed as well, for a reason made more explicit in (E), that more property damage could be occurring because there are more people, and thus more property subject to potential tornado damage. With just this information, (E) would be the best choice because it best explains the discrepancy. But that's not all we get. We also have the word "now" in (B) and (E), which should disqualify these choices. Who cares that there are more citizens or more intense tornadoes now? We're interested in a discrepancy recorded year over year, from 1953 up to now. (D) is the only plausible answer choice that allows for the explanation to explain the annually recorded increase. Knowing only that there are more citizens now doesn't help explain the real discrepancy at issue with any certainty whatsoever. Given the information provided, I have no idea, for instance, if the "many more citizens" came from a one year massive immigration that happened just last year. How could that help explain?

I was a Political Science major. I think it depends what state you want to work in. I know California requires a paralegal certification/class, but in DC i was able to get the job with just a BA.

I read Passage B to be more ambivalent than Choice (B) in #9. The author kept asking questions and then presenting conflicting possible answers. So I chose (D), because Passage B does speak about both point-counting and holistic methods. I should have remembered that Passage A doesn't express an opinion about holistic methods, and not chosen it. But I didn't see another likely choice :( I just didn't feel like Passage B had an opinion on the likelihood of incorrect matches, it just seemed wholly skeptical.

You could apply to paralegal jobs. That's the route I took, and I know many of the paralegals at my firm plan to go to law school. It's a great way to get legal experience and also think about the reasons you actually want (or don't want) to be a lawyer.

I agree with your connection of 24 and 27. If the correct answer in 27 is (A), that strawberry crops can supports C- and T-mites without significant damage, then we have reason to also believe the T-mites don't harm the crop. That's the missing link to make (E) correct in 24. We're making a leap to take (A) as correct in 27, because the passage only implies the T-mites don't harm the crop, it doesn't explicitly state it. But if we accept this implication, then (E) should be right for 24.

For 24, I don't see any support in the passage for using pesticides? I knew I was making a leap with D because I had no idea whether T-mites harm the strawberries, but the author definitely thinks using predators is generally more effective than pesticides (because the author says the features of the T-mites are common). I decided it was better to make that leap than to make the leap toward thinking the author supported pesticides. I don't see where the author offers ANY alternative in the case where predators prove inadequate.

I never saw Jon's video, but your's is very helpful. I like that it offers a general tip, because purely question-specific explanations aren't as helpful as ones that include things to think about in general. The tip here, I think, is that we need to be careful and analyze the way typical indicator words are used. Thinking about what "but" is supposed to mean leads to the right answer here, but can also be helpful, I think, in similar questions.

I'm failing to grasp how a study that wasn't robust enough for any conclusions regarding *a causal relationship* says anything about *findings related to correlation.*

The argument seeks to explain a correlation, that infants who slept with a night light tended to be nearsighted as young children but the effect disappeared as they aged. Choice (D) doesn't say anything at all to make me doubt the correlation related findings in the latter two studies, it just says we can't use the the two studies to make any causal conclusions.

I used the method of looking at each choice and saying "Yes, No, Agnostic" for the each person. I put agnostic to A-C for Graham, so I ignored C when it came to Adelaide. I can see why D and E are wrong now, but I don't see how Graham attributes the victory to the computer. I don't see how Graham says anything at all related to C.

Any thoughts on which to rely more on?

Kind of on this topic, when do we expect to receive the admissions tickets for the June 9 test?

Where do these data come from? I've seen the ranges higher in other places like here http://lawschoolnumbers.com/.

Definitely co-sign the first comment.

I thought I had hit a wall and then got my best score yet. For reading comprehension, one thing to do is make sure you're just reading a lot in the course of your life. Make sure you have a book/magazine you're into and read it on commutes (etc.), and actually practice reading, don't just fly through the story. Another thing that helps is actively listening to podcasts like Planet Money and Radio Lab. You can use these tool to practice evaluating arguments even when you're not "strictly studying."

I agree with nlschwartz. The argument is this:

Premise 1) the animals went extinct.

Premise 2) it is implausible that the animals went extinct due to the humans hunting.

Premise 3) the humans undoubtedly carried disease-causing microorganisms.

/////

Conclusion: the microorganisms must have been the crucial factor in the extinctions.

Answer choice C) attacks premise 2. It says "wait a minute, no. It is plausible that hunting the crucial factor in the extinctions." While Answer choice D) says, "actually, it's possible the disease-causing microorganisms don't actually cause you to suffer. you can carry these microorganisms without suffering, so it doesn't have to be the case that the microorganisms were the crucial factor in the extinctions."

Back to the original weakening lesson, it seems that answer choice C attacked the [dragonballz] character, not the blue beam. Answer choice D accepts the character as is, but says, "no, that beam is not very thick." [sorry, I forget the names]. I assume I'm wrong, given the scrutiny, etc., but where am I wrong?

I do the same as Al. If I discover another inference when doing that I also write that into my list of the rules.

Chrome is working at all. Mozilla has worked for me and IE ( i know...) has been working most of the time. I really need chrome back...

Jonathan does that apply to chrome as well?

I am having trouble both with the translations and applying the logic. I think I just need to practice the translations more and then really actually master the valid and invalid inferences

So is B basically correct because it is the only answer choice that even addresses differing punishments?

Why is answer choice A so useless? It's presenting evidence that many people who exercise don't do so by choice, which calls into question the idea that sedentary lifestyles come from choices. The conclusion is all about people who choose to be sedentary.

Man, on Q24, the very first sentence of the passage threw me off. It says "Dworkin argues that judges are in danger of uncritically embracing and erroneous theory..." That line totally dominated my memory of the later line that JY points out about seeking to validate the practice.