"We investigated ourselves and found that we had done nothing wrong"

It never gave good evidence on how expensive nearby towns are though-it only implied that the services being provided by the muncipality meant they were less expensive.A flawed argument,even if I now see they were getting at A.

What confused me on this question is I thought A could be true if Marvel sales stayed constant but non-Marvel sales dropped off-as in the total sales within Calistan decreased-we are told that the total sales remained constant DURING THE TEN MONTH PRECEDING PERIOD.

The stimulus doesn't actually say what impact the information's accuracy will have on whether a judge/editor gives her the fateful order.Only B clarifies that matter,while C doesn't say whether it matters whether the information is accurate.Is it that it is being implied that she will be given the order irregardless of whether the information is true?Also B does say the editor will order disclosure if the information is accurate,and the journalist will want to if it is false,so why is B wrong?

How does it get rid of the objection that there is too little sugar that the water decreases by a lot?

Wasn't sure about this one because neither actually argues regarding whether the honeybee is communicating information on food sources via the dance,but whether that is even a possibility

I thought A was a trap answer-too strong to the point it could have been strengthening.Wouldn't the negation of A still leave room for "we should still look for more medicine plants because it couldn't hurt to have more of the same and could help to have more resources to call upon "

Couldn't the argument still work with the proposed explanation being possibly true?"Best to be on the safe side"/"It's worth a shot-try it and see what happens"

But the stimulus doesn't say that accurate measurements are sufficient. Only that they are necessary.

I was thrown off because E comes off as simply a restatement of the conclusion-I should have read more carefully.

Fun fact-the Inquisition specifically had to take vows to do their best to save the souls of those they prosecuted and to never use their powers for personal ends.

I wondered if it might be B due to it appearing to imply that Healy's would have known the truth by implying experienced customers were able to discern something was wrong.E just showed what could have been willful ignorance or stupidity rather than malevolence.A more challenging question could pull a trick like that.

I thought it was B due to the condition being required/sufficient being the crying/removal of hormones and the phenomenon being the reduction of stress

Objection: It's quite a leap from "this nucleomorph may indicate that endosymbiosis occurred"to "this entire species of plant is a result of endosymbiosis".Far more of a leap than "This nucleomorph may have been the nucleus of some other organism" to "This nucleomorph retains all the DNA of another organism of which it might have once been part."Or so it seemed to me. Help?Please?

I forgot subconsciously that all premises must be taken as fact, no matter how obviously ludicrous. That's why A is the correct answer over D; taken as fact, A leaves no exceptions while taken as fact D does.

This shouldn't have referred to the events that were as depicted by the Illiad and the Odyssey as "the fictional world they depict"-could be offensive to neopagans.I as a Hindu would be deeply offended if someone said that about the Mahabharata or Ramayana.I don't want to come off as some jerk offended by everything but I felt someone needed to point out this problem.

I picked A but it was because 90 fish seemed too low a sample and the other choices were worse.:(

So what I need to know is how there's a significant difference between the trout anglers selecting the trout and them being picked randomly