I don't think this question was racist or problematic but I am so down to cancel this question to boost my score

I don't like the way JY explains it either, but it appears to me that this is another case of a "confusing relatively for absolutely" mistake. If we negate the statement, all we get is that "Azalea bushes do not do as well in treated clay soils as in naturally acidic soils.

Do not do as well does not mean that it doesn't do well. That's a false dichotomy mistake. For all we know, it could do just a tad bit worse, but not significantly. In fact, it could do better in clay soils, because to say that it "do(es) as well" means they are equally doing well. Not equally doing well means that one is better than the other, and we just don't have enough information to determine if this assumption is required.

I chose C thinking that we had to fulfill the other condition, but failed to realize that the application stated that one of the conditions were already true. Given the contrapositive of the principle's statement (if seriously harm OR /does so in the hope of benefiting someone other than oneself, then one should not criticize the works of another), we only had to find information that affirmed the truth of that condition. This condition is the latter, /does so in the hope of benefiting someone other than oneself.

Answer choice A best addresses this by affirming the truth of this condition by stating that Jarrett KNEW the defects were so obvious that it would benefit no one. In other words, he did not do so in the hopes of benefiting someone other than himself, because he knew he wouldn't benefit anyone but did it anyways.

For anyone that may have been in the same boat as me: I didn't understand what E was saying but I was confusing the placement of "not".

conditionally advocating a tactic on the grounds that it results in an argument for which one could not consistently accept the premise but deny the conclusion

If I read it as for which one couldn't consistently accept the premise but deny the conclusion then it makes sense: it's saying you can't accept the premise but deny the conclusion, if you accept the premise then you accept the conclusion as per the argument made in the stimulus.

I was reading it as could not consistently accept the premise but deny the conclusion which I am still having so much trouble figuring out what it could mean.

Usually, it is best for you to practice without time to make sure you get the core concepts down. Once you get all right without the stress of time, start working on getting them right under the stress of time. So it is definitely fine to forgo timing as a beginner, since you're not expected to get everything correct immediately.

When you take your PT, however, definitely take it under time. Take all your PTs under time.

You are overthinking

This question has the same energy as the ridiculous rattlesnake question where the true answer only tangentially related to the premises and relies on what I refer to as the absurd. Despite Cecile meeting both requirements for not disclosing I could say she doesn't actually need to because the people who she would report to are dead anyways! That would be such a beautiful answer choice!

I chose D in blind review making the assumption that cumulative was restricted to the past few decades as mentioned in the stimulus, but that is not a reasonable assumption to make. Maybe it's not reasonable to assume it encompasses two hundred years like JY does, but the point is that it's not reasonable to assume anything about an answer choice at all.

In probability theory the sum of the probabilities that some event A occurs and doesn't occur would be equivalent to 1. This means that finding the probability some event A occurs, given that you know the probability it won't occur, is 1 - the probability it won't occur.

If I flipped 5 coins and asked for the probability that heads occurred at least once, I could find number of times exactly 1 coin is heads, exactly 2, exactly 3, exactly 4, and exactly 5. Which is a lot to compute. So instead, you can just consider the negation of at least once, which is none. It's much easier find the probability that heads doesn't occur at all (all tails, 1/32), and subtract that from 1. Just one way to think about it - especially useful if you have knowledge of probability.

Jesse we need to study

Answer choice C talks about a certain subset of non-Euclidean systems of geometry that have any empirical verification. This subset is not the same subset of non-Euclidean systems of geometry with the most empirical verification, of which there is only one since most implies a singular entity. It just isn't specific enough to completely negate our argument, even if at all.

I think what you're asking is best applicable to this situation, but there's also no definition of argument that requires the premise to strictly be specific or the conclusion to be broad.

Definitely not - both make references to the other and their existence depends on the other. It's a mutually beneficial relationship.