I second what trishues said above. I've NEVER been a morning person. I used to wake up at 8:20am for my 9 to 5 shift. But now that I'm married and working full time, being free to hang out with my wife after work is essential! So, this year I started waking up an hour earlier and gradually moving that time back (I'm at 4:30am now!).

It sucks at first. Like, a lot. But it's SO worth it to finish your work day and realize, "oh, hey, I've already studied for an hour today!" It reduces that post-work crunch feeling (dinner, studying, socializing, and suddenly your day is maxed out). When you study first thing, the post-work period feels refreshingly...discretionary?

Like, if you want to see friends, see them! If you really bombed that logic game, go ahead and drill for an hour. And so on.

I've also found that working out first thing in the morning dramatically increases my mental acuity and mood, so I HIGHLY recommend doing so if you're able! After a good run, a shower, and a cup of coffee, the morning grogginess is no longer a factor.

Ultimately, you're going to have to find the life balance that works for you. Consider this a great opportunity to piece together a disciplined routine that can apply to law school and beyond! For me, thinking about what kind of student, what kind of husband, and--more generally--what kind of person I want to be lead to the breakthrough where I just felt "I'm going to HAVE to be a morning person for this to work."

Some thoughts on this question, since my first instinct was, well, hate and resentment! But I think I've worked this out now, and I have newfound respect for this question:

The geologist presents the scientists' view (carbon deposit theory) as being incompatible with the observation of biomarkers in petroleum; the implication is that such an observation supports the dominant view (plant/animal remains). Since the argument hinges on this incompatibility, we can anticipate that the right "weaken" answer will also resemble an "RRE" (resolve/reconcile/explain) answer. And that's exactly what (D) offers, albeit with a subtle logical connection: One must recognize that bacteria suffice as a "living organism" as described in the definition of biomarkers—this seems to be the jump that a few of us in the comments have some beef with.

However, retracing my steps with this question, the trip-up seems to be more with tracking the argument accurately and less with the scientific nuances. After all, I don't think anyone would claim ignorance of the fact that bacteria are, indeed, living organisms. What is tricky, however, is following the argument: the dominant view says X; scientists say Y; Y is wrong because Z; (the implication being that Z tends to support X). Once I recognized this structure and realized this can be thought of as a Weaken-via-RRE question, (D) seemed much more attractive, and the other answers much less so.