Thanks!

Apart from the "some psychologists" bit, I'm still confused why reverse causality is a problem if the goal is merely to explain a correlation. Perhaps the explanation of the association is a reversal of the expected relationship, and what's the issue with that? I'm also not reassured by Nora's comment because an answer choices that strengthens still "contributes to an explanation."

I get why D is right, but I have a difficult time eliminating C when it seems like changes in social customs refers to stuff like the increasing educational attainment levels of women, which did in fact change literary techniques. For example, the local colorists responded to those changes in social customs by increasingly romanticizing the past in their work.

B feels right because the CEO could be thought of as an case study involving an individual in the corporation who could act morally. Additionally, it feels odd to imply (like A does) that the passage's MAIN point is about CEOs, when it seems more like CEOs are used as an example to make a broader point about individuals' moral decisions within a corporation.

Isn't this class a PAI lesson rather than RRE?