honestly, I feel like I'm good with taking the L on this one.

I disregarded A because the stimulus says that the results of the legislation have reversed the decay of urban centers. However, the argument is saying that the legislation should not be commended because some people benefit more than others. Specifically, the people that the programs were intended to be built for. How does the princple that we should focus on results and not intentions help justify the conclusion? What am I missing?

A is wrong because it's not certain that the conclusion is valid even if the premises are true. Does this explanation make sense for why A is wrong?

Can another explanation for B being wrong is that the answer choice mentions "desired effects" which is not applicable to the toxic side effects? A person taking a daily dose of herbal medicine would not desire that the desired effects be toxic. I got B wrong during a timed section because I did not take desired effects into account.

i honestly just didn't catch the detail of 10 films studied and him acting in 20 films

I think you're taking too many practice tests. You might be better off taking more time to truly review each question in each practice test before moving on and taking another. That way, you start to notice patterns between questions and avoid making similar mistakes and subsequent tests going forward.

E is right and requires a deep understanding of the results of the study discussed in 2 and 3. In 2, the students said that at home they would speak spanish and not code switch. In 3, the family members primarily spoke english at home and switched to spanish for rhetorical effect. Thus, the author would agree that people at home do not code switch and instead stick to one language.

LMAO I did not choose B because I thought wood and plants were separate.

I think just find the most optimal conditions where you're able to properly do every single question and also review super well. However, I think there is a slight benefit to being able to push through slightly when you're sleep deprived but this is purely from my own anecdotal experience where I had to take both of my tests at 8 am and I can say that fatigue definitely hit hard throughout both.

including this below because A tripped me up for some reason.

A is wrong because of proportions.

analogous example for understanding.

fact - in the jar, m&ms are the most numerous kind of candy.

statement - there are more m&ms than non m&ms.

This is wrong because there still could be more non m&ms (combined) than m&ms. For example, 20 skittles and 20 mike and ikes = 40. There could be 35 m&ms which is more than skittles and mikes but not more combined.

For E, faster to me clearly implies that the beetles were quicker at colonizing the land than the spruce trees were at establishing forests. Like, it took the beetles two years to colonize and the spruce 3 years. I thought this was wrong because we're not actually given any information on the speed in which they formed, just that one was before the other. That is why I thought D was the better answer because we at least know that in one of the dates proposed, it is possible that the cold beetles were replaced towards the end of the ice age. please help with this distinction, I will make similar mistakes with language in the future and I'd like to get on top of it.

I understand that C is definitely a flaw and the best answer choice but I'm still confused why A is wrong and maybe it's flying over my head. The study focuses on chameleions but then concludes that it is about lizards which is applicable to A. I know there is the phrase "such as chameleons" but chameleons would fall under the general category of lizards which is why A is still applicable?

The second sentence in B, "the revised code only applies to the first part", is not related to the conclusion since we know that the revised code doesn't apply at all.

Meanwhile, both arguments in the stimulus apply to the conclusion, the first part about not being able to teach more than one introductory course relevantly applies that he cannot teach two introductory language courses. The second part about there being no introductory language courses definitly applies because you can't teach introductory classes if they are not offered.

Is that why D is a better argument, because both premises have direct application to the conclusion?

I understand why B is wrong since the call is seemingly irrelevant to the birds being spotted.

However, I'm totally confused by C. The stimulus says that these birds are being sought out. If there are lots of birds in this area and they're all completely still, I would imagine they would be somewhat easy to spot which is why the information does not resolve the situation for me. Can someone explain this to me differently?