@ above: my bad.
I try to be hard on myself when I succeed, and more optimistic when I fail.
I have a couple questions I would love to hear your explanations for. PT 9 LR 2 #23 and #25
PT9 LR2-23 MBT
Fact 1: The current farm management practices hurt animals more than other practices (that are more consistent with farm animals' behaviors) hurt animals.
Fact 2: The current farm management practices are less efficient than those same other practices.
Thus, you can tell that there are certain management practices (the ones that are more consistent with farm animals' behaviors) that are less hurtful and more efficient than the current ones. (E) is correct.
(A) Could be false. We don't know if management practices can change behavioral tendencies of animals. For all we know from the passage, we're trying to make do with what we got.
(B) Could be false. This answer reads too much into the narration of the stimulus. Knowledge of evolutionary history can inform us of animals' behavioral tendencies, but it's not necessary. You can know behavioral tendencies (or even just the right practices, regardless of any knowledge of evolution or tendencies) without knowing evolutionary history.
(C) Must be false. The current method is both hurtful and inefficient. There's no reason to believe the current method hits some sort of middle ground where you can't improve in one element without suffering in another. Quite the opposite--you can improve in both.
(D) Could be false. Just because the current method happens to be painful and inefficient, doesn't mean another method is both the least painful and the most efficient. Maybe the most efficient method inflicts a little bit more pain on animals than complete free-range farming does, which might be less efficient.
PT9 LR2-25 NA
My prephrase went something like this: "gee, way to be selfish and assume others are wrong just because their results are different from yours. maybe you're the one who's wrong." D came closest in matching that prephrase. If the replicators' own methods were crappy, how could they go around saying the original study had crappy methods? No one would believe them.
(A) Could be false. In fact, probably false. If the replicators actually believed this, then their case against the original study's measurements would be weakened because people would just attribute the difference in results to sloppy description of the experiment, not sloppy measurement.
(B) Could be false. The controversy might have fueled the replicator's decision to try to replicate the study, but the controversy alone doesn't make the results any more likely in error. The replicator's arguments are based on the inconsistency between results, not the controversy.
(C) The original study called theoretical principles into question? How do we know that? Even if it did, I don't see how it has anything to do with the replicator's argument. The replicators are interested in crapping on the original study's measurements, not the original study's discussion of theoretical principles.
(E) Could be false. If you believe, as the replicators do, that the original study used faulty methods, then you wouldn't care how many times the original researchers observed the results. You would just conclude that they got the same wrong results every time because they used the same wrong measurements every time. You'd just laugh at them for wasting their time.