Comments on Submitted For Your Peer Review

Try it again with a Muedede piece.

This is so detailed that a schlub like me cannot determine whether it's real or not.

Calling Slog readers "peers" is a bit of a stretch, isn't it?

That story about how, dude, a pregnant Hooters waitress is a bummer? That story? I'm pretty sure reading that made me dumber.

Of course, you need a comparison - say the difference in scores after preparing with the Seattle Weekly.

With a sample size that large, it can't be wrong.

hurry up and get this published so you can list it on your applications!

and good luck. DO MORE PRACTICE EXAMS. after that, DO SOME MORE PRACTICE EXAMS. then REPEAT the first two steps.

The researcher failed to control for other possible sources of improvement, including practice at taking the MCAT verbal reasoning section. The researcher also neglected to include lots of pretty Minitab graphs which I wouldn't look at or take the time to understand but would still pass judgement on anyway.

@5, 8.

Response to Reviewers:

The authors greatly appreciate the efforts, critiques and careful reading by the reviewers. With their thoughtful assistance, we believe the revised manuscript is significantly improved. Out point-by-point response follows below.

Reviewer 5:
1. "Of course, you need a comparison - say the difference in scores after preparing with the Seattle Weekly."

While we agree that a comparison between the effect of Stranger writing and Weekly writing would be an intriguing line of experimentation, we firmly believe this is beyond the scope of this initial study. This manuscript demonstrates both the safety and efficacy of reading Stranger writing before examinations. As such, future studies may and should address the safety and efficacy of Weekly writing. We're just not prepared to do so, nor will our IRB approve such risky exposure.

Reviewer # 8:

1. "The researcher failed to control for other possible sources of improvement, including practice at taking the MCAT verbal reasoning section."

We heartily agree with the reviewer's cautions, brilliant and perhaps revolutionary notion. A *controlled* experiment? We shall bask in your glory for a mere moment. While we appreciate your forward thinking ways, we believe merely demonstrating an effect is sufficient and meritorious.

2. "The researcher also neglected to include lots of pretty Minitab graphs which I wouldn't look at or take the time to understand but would still pass judgement on anyway."

This egregious omission is deeply regretted. In the revised manuscript, we have included the requisite number of redundant, non-informative and ignorable graphs, despite the fact the table quite effectively and efficiently conveys the necessary information.

(Officially now, about seven slog readers are still along on the joke...)

God, I love science.

LOL

Well, for the record, I'm a regular reader and I rocked the verbal reasoning section of the MCAT. Wish I could say the same for o-chem.