I don't love the written explanation for AC (A): "This is irrelevant, because whether or not maté has been in use in Paraguay for a long time isn’t the same question as whether or not maté originated in Paraguay."

Because then the correct AC (E) says, "the longer a beverage has been in use in a particular place." So it seems that it is, in fact, relevant. Or am I misunderstanding the wording?

@ksh9665264 You could say that LSAC wanted us to find those differences "marginally perceptible" (stim), rather than "imperceptible" (E).

@JackLaughlin I think where the "high doses" from the AC connects is to the premise that says "people who regularly consume high doses..." So it's based on that premise that the article gets its conclusion. BUT if, during that study, those who are taking high doses are actually compromising their resistance to diseases, it does not quite follow that they would tend to be healthier.

This is just my take. I got it wrong as well, and it took a while to work through it in review.

I went with E because it seems to say that our company now has a competitive advantage. I.e., once we differentiated, our sales increased. Still unsure how this is wrong.

@Tumptytumtoes I was very hung up on this as well, and scrolled way down through this thread to find an answer. Someone pointed out that it comes from the first sentence of the stim: "organisms originated through" = "emerged as the result of"

@mb4358-1-1-1 I was scanning the Discussion looking for an answer to this, and this is the best explanation, thank you! "organisms originated through" = "emerged as the result of"

After being SURE of AC A, I see the errors now: "those configurations" vs "some sequences of moves" not being the same thing, as well as the passage's referential phrasing meaning "but only if those configurations [of chess pieces] are typical".

But this was still some grade-A BS.

@Katie_Volpert This explanation of "many would agree" does not make it true, was very helpful. Thank you.

@jxxbaek I totally agree with point #2. The conclusion said, "likely to help wildlife populations to recover." But causing less harm is not the same as helping them recover. For me, this didn't connect and is the reason I eliminated AC (A).

@rohitpurma388 I thought the same. I was unable to distinguish what should be explained - the aspect of unique adaptations or that they had a common source.