Following the last question, I was able to pretty quickly clock the acetylsalicylic acid sentence as a nonsequitur and went on the hunt for an answer choice that gave a reason for it to be in the argument.

Finally 5 out of 5 right on this section. I think something clicked in finding the answer that doesn't negate or challenge the arguments in the stimulus, but ties them together.

This one is actually a widely accepted theory IRL about who wrote Hamlet Q1. The assumption that an actor wrote Q1 is reasonable if you consider that the text of Hamlet could have been unavailable outside of Shakespeare's company soon after the play's creation. It could then follow that an actor from Shakespeare's company had written a bootleg of the play for actors outside the Globe.

I agree that it is a reach to infer that an actor didn't have access to the script at the time they were performing the play, but I think that's a separate concept from an actor having written their own abridged version of the script for wider release afterward.

There is definitely a spectrum of how comfortable a space can be; it can be more or less comfortable. But I think that the neutral point on that spectrum also falls under the concept of "comfortable." There is no word in English to express the feeling of a space with neutral comfort other than "comfortable."

In other words, if a space is not triggering a sense of discomfort, it is, by default, comfortable. Therefore, I think it is safe to assume a space sits somewhere on the binary of being generally comfortable or uncomfortable, and those terms would be contrapositives.

It helps to think about this visually in terms of intersecting sets. Let's look at the HP example. We can imagine two sets: wizards and Harry Potter's friends.

What we're told is that most of Harry's friends are wizards. So, let's imagine a circle that makes up Harry's friends and a larger circle that makes up all wizards. There will be an intersection between these two circles that contains more than half of Harry's friends. The majority of Harry's friends fall within the superset of being wizards. Therefore, some wizards are Harry's friends, but we are not told the ratio of the wizards set that intersects with Harry's friends.

Therefore, "Most of Harry Potter's friends are Wizards" does not imply that most wizards are Harry's friends. That would mean that the set of Harry's friends would contain more than half of all wizards, which is not stated and does not make intuitive sense – there are probably many more wizards than Harry's friends within the Wizarding World.

Yes, that is correct. A helpful way to think about it visually is that all trees fall within the superset of "not bird," and all birds can fall within the superset of "not tree."

LePreston