D implies that frequent drivers may in fact be driving the same number of times as infrequent drivers because when they drive, it is for longer periods non-stop i assume. therefore weakening the claim that they may drive more times (which is the defined chance of being involved in an accident, not the time on the road.) i was thinking this was maximum difficulty question and that would be a sneaky correct answer because it is not totally irrelevant.

okay question that may not make a lot of sense:

for the questions asking if a certain person mentioned in the pasage would most likely agree with which of the following...

if the answers are framed as "this group would say this about subject x"

"on this subject, person y would say this"

am i supposed to choose based on if this person agrees with the FACT that these perspective are saying this? or which principle they claim?

i got a whole question wrong twice through BR because it was framed that way. im still confused...

@RubiOrellana i was just struggling with this after spending over 5 mins on each question and being so confident in my answers, just for them to be wrong. i realized that the Lawgic method helps conceptualize the information, but when i have to reformat them in my head, i do much better visually. i just started using the circle graphs again and everything clicked once i took the time to slowly make them accurate. each wrong answer simply did not have membership in a certain subset. for me, that created bulletproof answer processing. maybe you just need to play around with the different methods and fit it to how your brain works. i hope this helps!

The argument never said the trees were intended for sale back to the community. farms can be for familial consumption, not always for profit. So the cost of planting trees obviously matter, but when it comes to apricots having a higher price, my only incentive to choose answer A is so the family can grow the expensive apricots instead of having to buy them. I am definitely mistaken but I don't know where i should have had the idea that they were selling them for profit.

@Kevin_Lin Ah, that is true. So the ambiguity of that answer is why I should not choose it. Thank you so much for your response. I appreciate it.

I understand how A technically strengthens the argument, I don't, however, understand why D wouldn't be a strengthener too. If iron in some foods is less easily absorbed by the body that other foods, i begin to assume (wrongfully so) that the meats and seafoods and other foods written by the journalist fall under the category of foods that easily flows iron into your system. Therefore, more iron would enter your system and give you Parkinson's. By cutting those foods out, you cut out the food that more easily put dangerous iron into your system to reduce your risk of contracting this disease. I know that might be a stretch but does anyone have clarifying thoughts about that?

@legally.brunette Sammeee