This is annoying. I read that being judged to have an excessive blink rate is surely bad for a given candidate's election results. But I think it's actually saying 'if voters use this excessive blinking thing to determine their votes, that is bad for the validity of the election." 

I eliminated C because I didn't think that hearsay from someone else was evidence, and the conclusion "never required maintenance due to dirt clogs" seemed too of a benefit.

I picked B because a study is clearly evidence, they did the act for others, and while it failed to succeed, the stimulus said "generally succeeds." Isn't it possible for B to work? I guess the "as with most Bureaucratic procedures" weakens the case a bit.

This question is horseshit

For SA questions, is it the case that the correct AC will always have the same conclusion as the stimulus? Is there ever a situation where the correct AC is the contrapositive of the stimulus? I am still a little fuzzy on when it is / isn’t acceptable to take the contrapositive.

As @kimht90675 did below, can these really be as simple as ID'ing the MC in the stimulus and then hunting for the AC that aligns? If so, then these become MC questions with a little more work...

Love this feature. Would be really handy if the system could tag each note made using this template to auto-generate a WAJ within 7 sage. I have just been using this feature for my WAJ, and not transposing it into Google Sheets, but it's a little clunky to just look at all my notes to get a sense for my WA trends. Would love a feature so that if note made using auto-generated WAJ template, it's added to a WAJ tab in the Study banner. That then pulls in the metadata for each question, e.g. type, subtype, difficulty, etc., and automatically populates a data table as you go. Feels like sort of a waste of time to just copy and paste each section of the WAJ template entry over to a spreadsheet, it's a formatting nightmare. @J.Y. Ping

Aren't we assuming that Mr. Fat Cat is in fact a cat? If not, then we are assuming that Mr. Fat Cat isn't a man in a cat furry suit.

But the stimulus didn’t say anything about taking “high doses” of vitamin C supplements. That means like taking 12 vitamin C pills, not taking a normal amount of high dose supplements. Conclusion didn’t say you had to take high doses to receive the effect. I call bullshit on this one

Isn't C also confusing necessary with sufficient? I read the first sentence of the stimulus as A --> B, where A = economic growth and B = acceleration of business demand. C is saying if B --> A, right?