First time posting, but I noticed that your post was recent and I happened to be looking at this question today. I figured I would throw in my thoughts and you can see what you think: A lack of framework is cited as the deficiency of focusing on lists and specifics in the absence of theory. A framew...

(A) is wrong because even if it's true that speeding tickets were constant, it doesn't attack the conclusion that the speed limit caused the decrease in serious accidents. If you chose this, you're assuming that speeding tickets and speed limits are related. Sure, it might, but it doesn't go far en...

But isn't it implicit in Max's conclusion that he believes that this is the only way to relieve overcrowding? He states that such moon colonies will almost certainly be built and severe overcrowding on the earth relieved. If he believed there were alternatives to moon colonies, how could he be so c...

Sorry, I'm still having a hard time understanding how to eliminate (D). During my PT, I did narrow it down to (A) or (D), but ultimately chose (D) because I thought it was more widely applicable to the tent caterpillars. (A) struck me as odd because of the "hungry" tent caterpillar specifi...

I thought (C) became obviously wrong when I thought of the calculator example the stimulus provides where it seems to state explicitly that this replacement (calculator replaces human calculation) wouldn't necessarily reduce the certainty (apparently because humans can still independently verify the...

I also struggled with (B) or (C). I ultimately did not choose (B) because of the phrase "scant evidence that remains." I thought that (1) the idea that there is scant evidence really went against the point of the passage and (2) l. 18 "...and also about how to piece together a whole p...

(B) appears wrong not because zoning itself isn't mentioned in the passage, but because zoning regulations as a way to promote economic diversity is never discussed, which is what (B) says. Also, in response to a previous poster asking "But doesn't the phrase "Children growing up in these ...

I don't think you can diagram the conclusion as "Money --> ~Health". I struggled with this question a bit as well and had it narrowed to (A) and (E), ultimately choosing (E). In reviewing the question, I approached it as follows: Conclusion: Never sacrifice health for money Why? Because...

I had similar thoughts as those posted above, particularly that there was something of note in allegedly switching from "avoiding heart disease" in the first sentence to "maintaining good health" in the last sentence. I think it's a fair assumption that avoiding heart disease inc...

The other potential issue I see with (E) is that it struck me as quite broad: academics are less willing/able to "write in a straightforward way." This seems to apply to writing beyond just political theories. My thought was that academics could still in theory be able to write in a straig...

Does anyone have more detailed thoughts on what precisely the "fault in an argument in favor of that claim" (per (D)) is? The explanation above indicates that the fault is that "television violence is not designed to cause violent behavior." This may virtually be the same thing, ...

I am most certainly not an instructor, who would have much more articulate explanations, but I spent a bit of time trying to figure out why A strengthened and felt it would be useful to try to write out. The obvious disclaimer: these are just my thoughts and I would more than welcome someone making ...

My reasoning in choosing (E) over (C) was: 1. (C) does not actually state the main idea. It tries to distract us by saying that Morrison's novel was unique and innovative (true) "for using jazz as its central metaphor." The last part is what makes this answer choice wrong - the whole point...