I was between A and D here. I also don't think E was all that attractive as J.Y. claims. The rest of that paragraph has nothing do with other kinds of persuasive writing. I saw the relativist historians as a possible rival group. But what I see wrong with A is that propaganda was not mentioned as a way to refute their claim. That claim was refuted in P2. The author in P3 is mainly concerned with the role of an objective historian. The author then mentions the propogandist as a way of saying: It is possible to end up becoming a propogandist but an objective historian must not be one. It is an extreme that should be avoided. That is why I picked D

I mapped it out as : If apologize -> for wrongdoing. If sincerely apologize -> acknowledges the wrongdoing one committed. if sincerely apologizes -> /intend to repeat. And finally if accepts sincerely -> acknowledges a wrongdoing. In both cases the necessary term is that the wrongdoing is acknowledged. If the wrongdoing is not acknowledged, then we know there was no sincere apology and there couldn't have been any sincere acceptance.

A: talks about repeating an act when we know the point is about intention

B: One can accept an apology that was not sincerely offered. For sincere acceptance, only one party has to accept that a wrongdoing happened.

C: talks more broadly about wrongful acts. The required term is having wronged a person.

D: Sincere acceptance is not a requirement for sincere offering.

E gets it right by matching the two required terms

More X rather than Y = X>Y

A. Compares the cars with scratched finishes now v. cars in past. The stimulus mentions nothing about how many cars had scratched finishes or whether there were more or less cars with them - unsupported

B. Unsure of whether this is true or not - unsupported

D Talks about the effectivity and preference for brushes with regard to older finishes. The stimulus doesn't mention which is more effective at cleaning. Nor does it mention that brushes were preferred for the older finishes.

E. Makes a claim about which kinds of car appear on the road more. We don't how the number of cars with clear finishes compares to the number of cars with old finishes. That is also not supported by the phrase "many cars today."

C. Claims that mitters do not usually produce visible scratches on cars with older finishes.

What we know

• New finishes are more easily scratched

• Old finishes are less easily scratched

• Mitters reduce to some extent the amount of scratches to car finishes because they are more gentle

• We know that this is "especially important" for the new finishes, which are easily scratched

Conclusion

• It is reasonable to assume that Mitters would similarly not usually damage Old finishes which are more durable

C fits the bill.

Premise: A group of unpleasant tasting meds are produced as tablets, capsules, or soft gels

Premise: Med M cannot be a tablet

Premise: Med M cannot be produced as a soft gel because the company can't

------

Med M will most likely be a capsule

Assumption: The rule in the first premise applies to Med M Med M has an unpleasant taste. This will trigger the conclusion.

most scientific theories contain entities posited solely on theoretical grounds.

So, we know Scientific Theories -m-> theoretical grounds.

Now, we know Theoretical grounds> /real from B.

Therefore, we know most scientific theories contain entities that should never be designated as real. Thus, some of the most explantorily powerful theories may contain entities that are not real.

@MD_301Gopats No problem

I think the explanation for C here is written wrongly. Please correct me if I'm wrong. The reason why C is wrong is because we don't know whether making the will public harms some/at least one person. But the explanation written states: We don’t know whether the alternative of making the will public “harms some.” That directly contradicts the stimulus. The stimulus states that the alternative to making the will public harms no one.

For those who find this unclear: E is not saying which is more expensive - pumping sea water or fresh water. It simply states that it is ... one of the largest costs involved in growing such crops. The premise provides the missing info: Pumping seawater is cheaper. You can think of it like this: Making a new type of product requires a certain process. E tells you that process is one of the largest costs in comparison to all other steps involved in making the product. That's great because now we know that process is one of the most costly steps involved in production. The premises now tell you that there are two ways to complete this process - a cheap way (Seawater) and a more expensive way (Freshwater). So, now you can reasonably deduce that seawater (the cheaper way) would be more cost-effective

@JayB Also, I think E assumes that other prey would be more appealing than the Babblers. It requires an inappropriate assumption about other prey and the behavior of the Babbler's predators.

E initially attracted me more than B. The stimulus stated that that it would reveal the group's approximate location. However, it didn't state that they would be able to find the Babbler's even though their approximate location is revealed. So, I thought it was plausible they would use their camouflage as a tool to hide while directing their predators to other prey. B, however, is more direct as it states that they bark to intimidate. And since they act as a group it would serve to deter predators. I think that is also what tripped me up with B. I initially saw B and thought that was a good answer. However, I doubted whether they actually appeared as a group or were more spread out for some reason.