Well said! :)

I picked (E) but did not like the wording... "No quasar that has ever been seen..." What?? What quasar? It's not possible that you've seen a quasar... it disappeared 400 million years ago! You may have seen the quasar's light, but not the quasar. I think they could have worded this better...

I agree with kwilliams92... I got this answer right, HOWEVER answer choice (A) is contradictory to the last sentence. If there are NO SINGLE SPECIES of dinosaur at all in the Mesozoic Era, how is it that dinosaurs inhabited the northern part of the region during the Mesozoic Era, if NO SINGLE SPECIES lived during the Mesozoic Era?? Doesn't make sense. This expects you to assume that maybe they just didn't live in the Southern part of the region during that era, as opposed to just living anywhere during that period...

Hi! I am interested. I stay in San Diego, but I'm in LA often. I'm usually there during the week though and not on the weekend... Idk if that helps, but let me know! I'd be interested in joining!

Thank you for your explanation David. I had to watch it a couple more times but it finally clicked lol... Idk what I was thinking but it definitely makes sense now! Because the humans are eating a higher number of calories than their optimal number of calories, it actually does make them comparable to the lab rats, therefore by reducing their caloric intake will increase their lifespan. This weakens the argument saying that it won't because they are not comparable. Got it. I think you meant answer choice (A) btw lol

This question REALLY confused me. Are we saying that, because Americans consume a higher number of calories than the optimal number of calories for a human diet, by them reducing their caloric intake will increase their lifespan? For the lab animals it's just reinstating their normal lifespan... how do we not know if the humans are reinstating their normal lifespan by eating a reduced-calorie diet? Idk if I am looking at this the right way...soo confused... HELP!

My best, most accurate summary of this explanation:

Here a journal informs us about several psychological studies that took place. Subjects were given something to read that caused them to develop new convictions. After being told that what they read was actually false, it did not affect them. They continued to hold on to the beliefs that they developed after reading whatever it was that was given to them. The journal now believes that this study now suggests that people are basically stubborn and continue to hold on to beliefs, even without actual evidence.

Choice (A) does not weaken the argument. "The beliefs based on the original statement were correct"? Who's to say whether or not certain beliefs are correct? That's an opinion and irrelevant. We want to weaken the idea that these people continue to hold on to these acquired beliefs even without credible evidence. What other reason could they have for holding on to these beliefs even after being told that what they read is false? This choice does nothing for us.

Choice (B) also does not weaken the argument. Again, we want to know why these people believe what they believe. Whether it is unrealistic for people to keep track of the original basis of their beliefs is irrelevant and again another opinion.

Choice (C) tell us that the original statements would be highly misleading if true. 1st of all, if something is true, I'm not sure how it could be misleading. 2nd, how does this tell me why these people are still holding on to their acquired beliefs? It doesn't. Irrelevant.

Choice (D) is great. It gives us a reason as to WHY the subjects are still holding on to their beliefs even after being told that it is false. They received some other confirmation that it is actually true. The studies could've said, "Pigs fly.... JUST KIDDING! We lied. Pigs actually don't fly." The subjects would then say, "Well actually, on the contraire, we saw about 10 pigs fly yesterday. So pigs do actually fly." This is why they believe pigs fly even after being told that the don't. They experienced it 1st hand. This weakens the idea that people hold on to beliefs even without evidence. By receiving confirmation, the credible evidence is there.

Choice (E) tells us nothing. What does them being skeptical beforehand have anything to do with why they now are strong believers? This doesn't matter.

LOL! This video is too funny... literally laughing out loud here haha :)