They can steal my thunder, but they can't steal my thunder thighs...

I think what tripped me up about choice A was the meaning of "ways that appear to be predestined". I thought these "ways that appear to be predestined" referred to Weiner's belief in the inevitable westernization of indigenous cultures that gets facilitated by the introduction of camera technologies.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like my mistake was that I was too liberal in my reading of "ways." If "ways" refers to the impacts of technologies, then Answer choice A would make sense. But "ways", in this answer choice, very specifically refers to "ways" that "technology is exchanged" - i.e., through trade, charitable donations by NGOs, etc. These "ways" have nothing to do with the content of the passage.

So this subtle specificity of "ways" is really a red herring to test whether we're paying attention to the content of the answer choice. An answer choice that said "in ways that negatively impact indigenous societies" would be much more appealing because it captures Weiner's actual argument. Fortunately, we have answer choice E to do this instead.

#feedback I'd love it if we could get a link to view the question with answer choices by themselves before receiving the answer and walking through the explanations presented in this section. That way, we would benefit from both doing the actual question and reviewing them with comprehensive explanations. 

^This goes for all RC/LR questions that we don't also get tested on. Thanks!

I wonder if it would be helpful to point out that "many" can have either an absolute or relative frame of reference, depending on the speaker. As the description here states, "many" simply means a large number. Large numbers can be large in relative terms: 45 out of 50 people. Large numbers can also be large in absolute terms: 50,000 is a large number even when selected out of a pool of 2 million (in which case 50,000 does NOT meet the minimum 50% percentage threshold to qualify as most). 

Since it's usually impossible to know without exact context precisely which meaning a speaker intends with "many", the safe assumption is that we don't actually know the lower % bound of "many" is. In other words, we can only safely assume that "many" means an absolute large number since absolute large numbers can still fail the "most" threshold.

Unfortunately from here, what constitutes an "absolute large number" is subjective. 50,000 literally does not receive numeric representation in some languages, since humans in unique environments may not have reason to conceptualize a number that large. Taking this example to the extreme: the number 2 will feel 100% bigger than 1 to a person who's only ever experienced 1 of everything. That person will consider 2 to be a large number and will describe pairs of things as "many."

As a result, "many" is only guaranteed a lower bound of "more than 1" and shares the same boundaries as "some".