I didn't understand this answer choice very much. I thought that B was making a pretty big assumption by just stating that they had been there for more than ten years. It doesn't say much beyond the fact that they're still there, which to me actually seems like something that could support the argument by saying that they've stuck around for that long despite not getting paid more. I thought C made sense because it would imply that if the newspaper reaches a plateau, we could assume there wouldn't be many assignments to learn from which would decrease the value and opportunity of learning.

Can someone tell me if this interpretation is kinda right? This one confused me but if I am understanding it correctly, I believe that the argument requires E because one of the main premises is about the fact that they cannot afford housing withing Ocean View. This argument is solid if we assume that this financial aspect will not change and so, answer choice E knocks this alternative out of the picture by saying there will not be a pay raise that might change the amount of employees who could afford the housing in Ocean View.

Hi, can someone help me understand what he means when he says the "judgement" of the statement should be on the right side? I may have missed this part of the foundation lessons but I am not understanding why I have such a backwards interpretation of this question!

the "best understood" part of the answer in number 3 really threw me off. i was overthinking it because i understood both of them as saying this and that are the best way to "portray" human life, but i didn't know if it was enough to prove that it was also best "understood" in that way! the language can definitely be tricky.