I do no think this is a correct analogy because we are not talking about the dramatic findings being more dramatic for the smaller studies than for the larger (admitted Asian GMATs probably higher than Euro).

I think a better analogy would be "Almost everybody who gets into Harvard Business School has a GMAT of over 700. Harvard Business School admits far more Asian than European applicants. So, Asian students (general population) are more likely to have a GMAT>700 than Euro students (general pop)." This would be a flawed argument since there might just be TONS more Asian students in the general population compared to Euro students.

B also forgot the not violating anyone's human rights part.

My thinking for why B is wrong is because it explains why old trees might tend to be rare, but not why rare trees tend to be older (survive longer) than common trees.

Its a method that has worked for me

This took me a day..

For 2, i thought C was far too strong... In the first sentence they say "most authoritarian rulers WHO undertake" so we have a subset of authoritative rulers here. Then in the first sentence of second para they say "three major types of changes CAN" so we have changes that COULD bring about democracy. So from those combined with the final para that states that all authoritative regimes will bring about those changes, we know that authoritative regimes can become democratic, not that most will....

WHY IS THIS LISTED AS 2 STARS?!!?!!?!?!!?

This was the hardest passage I have encountered after more than a year of study...

Can't D be explained as such:? Since the stimulus states that the subjects would have been more accurate with all top guesses, then it must be the case that some of these subjects sometimes guessed bottom and got wrong. Otherwise, the argument would not hold at all since, if D was negated, then the subjects did just as well or better than if they had picked all top.

C is still wrong no doubt, but I think JY's interpretation/diagram of it is incorrect. C is saying manufacturers will sell the same products under different model names. The way JY drew it would be if C rather had said "manufacturers sell different products under the same model name". Is my thinking correct?

Terrible explanation for 25 B. The powerful argument being a compelling embodiment of objectivity does not mean that objectivity is essential to historical scholarship. #help

I found this question incredibly difficult and missed it on BR as well. I went with E because Marion might still take the train even though she hates it and thus may not have a good reason for doing so.

I completely convinced myself of C for Q2 in BR...

@sandsnikolai840 said:

@jackshea774649 said:

No new material. They're just reorganizing old material

So they just took all of the already released ones, mixed them, stripped LG, and thats it?

I was really under the impression that some new material would be dropped.

@jackshea774649 said:

No new material. They're just reorganizing old material

So they just took all of the already released ones, mixed them, stripped LG, and thats it?

Following

This is great thank you! Basically, C mixes up the conclusion and the argument flows opposite of that in the stimi.

well, they are

very hard to get head around this one

Why was this question so hard for me?? Anyone else?

Very irrelevant to the conclusion. Both the premise and the conclusion only speak to modern literature.

Negating B: why can it not be the case that it is to the advantage of no individuals and rather it is merely neutral to them.

With this I believe the argument would still hold...

C might be correct if it rather said something along the lines of: "the frequency in the use of words in social media is not necessarily indicative of the frequency of the use of words NOT ASSOCIATED WITH THE SAME FEELING in other forms of communication"

You just gave me the best idea ever..

What was up with this LR section????