Could C also be a better answer because it clarifies that the motorcyclist incurs the risk willingly, while A just says the car person chose not to replace the car willingly. What if he doesn't know about the risk, or what if the safety features only help people outside. Basically I think A is just too general while C is more specific.

how do we know that rubisco is in the sheath cells when all we know is its in airtight tissues in the center of the leaf

but we don't know the past activity of the representatives?

There have been questions I have gotten wrong because of the "more" pattern. Like the more of something we have the more of another thing we have. The connection we need is between lack of info and more frequent crisis. But how do we know that the more information we dont have the more crises we have. We just know that countries without info experience more crisis than countries with info. What if both countries lack info? It doesn't say that country A with less info than country B, but B still lacking info, will have more crisis does it? #help

The relationship between sap and sugar that Galina refutes is not solved with C because C isn't sufficient to say sugar is the thing squirrels are after. Galina is saying the sugar amount is so low, why the heck would squirrels work that hard. C just makes us thing, "well it's because the other trees don't have as much sugar." It still however does not answer WHY DO THEY WORK THAT HARD. Even if the sugar content is more, there is no evidence to disprove Galina's querry. D says squirrels literally wait until anything other than the sugar is gone from the sap before consuming it. This strenghthens the relationship between sugar and sap. Am I right on this? #help

#help can someone please explain for E: if most other companies have what we used to have, and we changed our policy, and now we get 25 percent increase, wouldn't you automatically think that the change was the reason you are getting more sales? We have something different than the other company and when we changed to that difference we have been getting more sales.

IS D NOT WHY THE ANALOGY IS FAULTY

doesn't the stimulus say "within the generally accepted statistical margin of error?" Does that not mean they were proven wrong within the margin of error so they are still good?

@akashpreetriar you wanna weaken the support between the premises and the conclusion. A lot of times what you said will happen, as weakening the support between the premises and conclusion goes against the conclusion, but sometimes the answer may not directly address the final conclusion but rather a pivotal premise.

@drive191-2 we aren't told tuition hasn't gone up we are told cost per course has not gone up. What about other aspects of tuition? Is this not just pick your poison which assumption do you want to pick? How are we assuming anybody lost their scholarships in D? Does anyone have an idea on how to get better at picking which assumption to allow and which to remove?

wouldn't the answer contradict the stimulus AND the question because A says "at the time life began." Regardless of whether a meteorite temporarily reduced it or if god had a change of heart, whenever that lightning struck and life began, the atmosphere was not reducing. Doesn't answer choice A just rewrite the premise? #help

@kikki3939 First addressing your point on why D might be wrong: The Stimulus only gives an EXAMPLE of the idea that it is trying to communicate. This specific example was "both societies having the same opinion on equality until it comes to their differing opinions on the elderly." We can't say the princple is strict enough on the SAME principles aspect based off this example. Regardless, that distinction is not enough to write off D when you compare it to any of the other answers

E is wrong because we want something that mirrors two societies which have very close/SIMILAR/samei dealogies on justice that have DEIFFERNT opinions/policies when it comes to social issues. With E we have two societies with DIFFERENT ideas of justice, which come together to have SIMILAR opinions/policies. It's the exact opposite.

The stimilus isn't really saying that you can't PREDICT a society's policies from its principles. It is saying that loose, general principles of justice are not SUFFICIENT enough to determine policies. You might be able to predict what the policy is based off the principle, you just can't detrermine the principle based ONLY off the policy.

I understand E CAN strengthen the argument, but does it actually strengthen the argument more than A? My opinion on A is that it perfectly strengthens the argument up until it says urban groups. The party's efforts on helping urban groups almost have no direct influence on it winning the election. So I can fully see how A is the best answer, but had A removed the last two words, it would still strengthen.

In advanced questions you would say that just because the metaphor existed before doesn't mean Grey didn't read Jordan's book. When do I choose to dumb down my reasoning and when am I supposed to scrutinize answers harder? #help

This is an RRE question we don't actually weaken the conclusion we are just told to find an alternative one.

If I am understanding why C is correct: C connects why premise 1 regarding the bird feeders even matters to the conclusion. Without it we are left with some random information regarding less birds at feeders. Now that we know birds die less when they forage naturally, we can see why the mild winter could save some brids from being cat food.