Ah, the good ol' coffee shop question. I got it right, but I was over time.

4/5 for Actual, 3/5 for BR. Didn't trust myself with answer B (got it right on Actual) in BR for Question 1. Never got 4 right. That one was a doozy.

It took me a bit longer, but I got it right. I almost fell for the trap about it being faster than the competition, but that's not what the advertisement is really saying. It's about being as quick with relief as the competition. Which means it CAN be quicker, but it's also likely to relieve pain at the same rate as the competition.

Picked D on my first try, then got it right on the second try. The answer is C. The conclusion is about family prosperity. Well, if the business is paying their family members low wages to have lower costs and increase profits, that may help the business, but the individual family members are being paid poorly. So they are not reaping the harvest of those profits for the business.

4/5, then 5/5 on BR. Took longer than I should to answer the questions, but right now, I'm focused on accuracy. Question 3 was a doozy, but looking back, it was my 50/50 split answer. I should not have overthought it. Even if the business has low operating expenses thanks to you not paying your family members good wages, that ruins the idea that it brings prosperity for the family.

3/3!

This one was easy. The conclusion is that the position to build the damn is misguided. The following premises reinforces why the idea is bad. C is tempting because of discussion of costs, but those are premises, not the conclusion.

Messed up twice here, my brain told me to pick B, but went with A again, because I thought I just took too long answering. It didn't click that I'm looking at a necessary assumption argument. B is right because it has to be true for the argument to hold. If a diagnostic test that falsely gives off a positive diagnosis is NOT a reasonable basis for treatment decisions, then the whole thing falls apart because it falsely identified two children as autistic.

A tripped me up, because I was focused on intent. But if I negated this, it would still work. Just because a test existed at an early age doesn't mean this new one isn't better than what came before.

2/5 during practice, 4/5 during blind review. Learn from where you failed.

This is where I get tripped up. There are arguments that are reasonable, but a fatal flaw makes them not as well of an answer as another answer.

Got this one wrong, but loved looking at exactly why I got it wrong. Makes me feel dumb that I didn't see it.