What made A appealing is that I believed that A countered B, in that there are animals genuinely being threatened by this weed.

A: "Impacts on wildlife have not been well studied, but serious reductions in waterfowl and aquatic furbearer productivity have been observed. In addition, several endangered species of vertebrates are threatened with further degradation of their breeding habitats."

B: The impact of purple loosestrife on furbearing mammals is discussed at great length, though none of the species highlighted (muskrat, mink) can be considered threatened in North America.

Trying to find out why this is wrong,the first thing that stands out is it feels like these "vertebrates being threatened" isn't good enough evidence, based on impact of wildlife not being well studied enough. Another point is that B never mentions vertebrates and only mentions a select few animals. B is saying none of these "highlighted" animals are extinct. But doesn't any chance of other endangered animals.

I feel like urban pollution is too unclear. Even if the power plants are far away from the urban area, it is the urban environment that caused that pollution. If I knew they were talking about the actual pollution that exists within the urban area, then this answer can make sense to me.

my time just went up

@AccountsPlayable it would be funny if wrote this in the same pattern of reasoning as this question

I messed up here, because I read D, and saw that the dating wasn’t published so I thought to myself,”well, it is published.” It has been “experimentally dated at about four billion years. So therefore this answer is stronger than I previously suspected and I picked E.

I should have taken into account the main point of this passage, and the use of caution and “ifs” when you continue reading after the quote. It’s not just the existence of the rock itself, but how it relates to the phenomenon

@IslamUmarov the cr7 of 7sage

Question for you guys. Do you watch the explanation video every time on these, or only when confused

@emilycvas231986 for me its mbt questions

I messed this problem up, because I assumed that people who attempted to reduce their fat in their diet, were already consuming more fat than those who did not attempt.

Why can't the right answer for Q4 be "some" persons who enjoy flying are commercial pilots

Is it because commercial airline pilots and "people" are technically not in the same circle with lawgic?