It may be easier to see how to reason with a JW when you consider how the governing body convinces them that they have the truth or how they convince themselves of it when they are confronted by troubling information. It seems that all they need is a plausible way to explain away inconvenient facts. If they hear about a case where pedophilia was covered up, it is usually sufficient to assume that it was an isolated case. It is unlikely that they will demand proof that it was an isolated case. It is even likely that they will ignore proof that it is a widespread problem if they have a plausible way (in their mind) to explain it.
The society also loves to quote and misquote authorities. A JW isn't going to expect a statement like four out of five scientists agree that the Awake magazine is scientifically accurate. It will probably be sufficient for just one scientist to make that kind of statement (or appear to make that statement). They will likely be content that a scientist could come to this conclusion, even if it is a rare event. I know that I used to think that way. If something troubled me, I just looked for a convenient explanation. If I saw someone doing something wrong, I assumed that he had good motives. (This can be a good thing, but it can also encourage abuses.) Do you have any comments on situations where this happens or ways to overcome that kind of thinking when talking to JW's. I've never had a chance to use it, but I would like to ask a JW what kind of evidence would hypothetically prove to them that the JW's are wrong. If they come up with something, there's a good chance that this evidence already exists. If they say nothing could prove that there religion is false, then I would suggest that they can't really have confidence in something that can't be falsified.