this is so stupidly brilliant, thank you. I love the art. Well done!

@JackHarlow That was it or me. Since the stimulus said "always" I went with B. But it's always ASSOCIATED, not always cause-effect

Right. So B would actually be valid if the stimulus had said “their falls had always been the result of vicious disregard for the people’s needs” BUT it doesn't say that, it merely notes that there is an association between the disregard of people's needs and government failure.

The crux of it is this: improved family health could contribute to less doctor visits; having a medical self help book at home could contribute to less doctor visits (maybe you just look something up instead of going to the doc); it's not necessarily true that having a medical self help book improves family health, though

@Bmariachi01 I picked D too. The reason it's wrong is because the conclusion of the stimulus isn't based on conditional logic. The conclusion of the argument is: Because Weingarten has a view (ie, that he is OK with pets) inconsistent (purportedly) with keeping animals in zoos he is therefore wrong to hold his view regarding keeping animals in zoos. There is no conditional logic there. In fact, the conclusion doesn't evaluate what makes a practice unethical or not. So it's pretty far off from the right answer, though the necessary/sufficient language makes things confusing. If the stimulus had instead said this, then AC D would be correct-- Weingarten: A practice is unethical only if it involves exploiting one being for another's gain. The zoo exploits animals by locking them up and gains by selling access to them. Therefore, zoos are unethical.

after spending some time with this one, I understand how D is correct. It's really just the word "overreported" that makes it the right answer; if the answer choice had indicated that the participant was watching themself, it would have been an easy question. The "twin" detail is a lure, it's designed to throw you off because it conflicts so deeply with our understanding of families, sibling rivalries, etc. If the AC had said "Participants who observed others reading overreported how much they read", that also would have been more obvious. They are using a FLAWED ANALOGY to weaken a FLAWED ARGUMENT, and that's what makes it tricky