@Lidiia It took me about the same time. I think taking time with the foundations is a better method than rushing through for the practice, as you may give yourself extra practice time, but will be less able to understand the "why" when you delve into process of elimination. Ultimately, everyone will have their own pace that works for them and there is no "right" way other than the way that works for you

OH *redacted for expletive*! 5/5 and I don't mind that I took my time.

Some of these I was confident in, but the 5* difficulty ones were no joke. Shout out to the person a few lessons back who attested to the multiple-color highlighting method to break down PR questions, as that was a game-changer here for me in this section.

Ah, I had a whole paragraph written out about how I felt the DIY route for this question was misleading in the justification of A, but now that I have had time to review comments, I do finally understand where I went wrong: The reason A is wrong is that the council member is not citing a lack of evidence against the view that the factory would be better suited, they only cited that the lack of evidence for the courthouse being better suited instead. It is an inference to state that the lack of evidence for one item equates to the lack of evidence against the shoe factory.

Lack of evidence against using the shoe factory could include: broken windows, poor insulation, asbestos, etc., but that is not explicitly stated here.

@cherry That would be in conflict with the Stimulus, as students chose "someone who has never served as a university president". So, if students did in fact pick someone with no experience as a university president, then the poll could not have been comprised of all candidates with university president experience.

I think I can help provide some guidance for anyone who got stuck between A and B like I did and went with A:

The reason that A is not the answer is that although the option of "requiring costly repairs" seems alluring in the weakening of the economic development, you are weakening the analogy used by the columnist and then have to infer that the columnist's city may also require costly repair. However, option B more directly criticizes the support between the premise of "Other cities have earned large returns on such an investment." and the conclusion that this city also investing in this adviser by bringing the scope out to say "well ok but you're comparing the economic development of New York and Boston to the economic development of Bangor Maine"

So, while both A and B are weakening the supports of the premises, B does so much more directly so that you don't need to infer that because some cars do still break down despite receiving preventative maintenance, this city's economy will also incur major costs despite the economic adviser.

@SimonArmendariz This is a great point and how I got to the right answer as well. I even had a moment of "the deterioration can be slowed by some anti-inflammatory drugs"...Ooooookay? I had the same notion of that support being a little underwhelming in regards to the microglia association, but then when answer b stated that it reduces the production of immune cells, i got it!

50 seconds is still really good! we're in foundations, so no need to rush it. that is for when we hit our practice sections 💪🏻💪🏻

@TylerMadani021 I got this far and never even realized we could be doing these questions. thank you!

I rushed into mapping it out just to fall into the trap of C. I am glad I took advantage of the Blind review to see that spacious interiors was not the criteria for a public place being comfortable; it was the rule of if the PP was comfortable. Oh well, onto the next one!