But my issue with A is that its entirely possible that most of the members can give consent without being consulted. For example, say all the members knew about this report being written, and they all consented to the idea of it being published without reading it. or being consulted. I feel like this isn't uncommon in like a newspaper where stories are approved to be published before it even is written, without needing to be consulted, because the purpose of writing the report or piece is for publishing. I just don't see how any of these are sufficient assumptions?

I see why every other answer is incorrect, and I even see why the first half of D lines up with the passage, but I still don't see how D's second part "modified to depict the friendship between the colonial and native cultures" represents the stimulus' claim that images of European AUTHORITY over other cultures were shaped through the reinterpretation of rituals. A friendship, to me, represents people on equal footing/ equal power. You would have to insert an assumption to say that depicting a friendship is illustrating the colonizing powers' authority over the other. I'm struggling to see how a friendship between colonizer and colonized represents an image of European authority? It just makes no sense to me.

I didn't pick D because I thought by "first instance" they were referring to the pre-modern bankruptcy laws that focused on punishment. Under this reading, D would be false bc the old bankruptcy laws we know gave creditors trouble as they often weren't made whole (as the insolvent debtors were unable to pay). Aka, I read D as saying "The author implies creditors are better served than is immediately apparent by laws that focus on punishment to provide a remedy for debtors". I guess the counter to this would be the laws that were punitive weren't seeking to provide a remedy for debtors, but I still think the phrase "in the first instance" is confusing and still am not sure what it means in this context?

I thought it was E because the stimulus goes from discussing twins to the conclusion that "many of OUR" as in the general population (so not just twins but maybe just a brother and a sister). I thought a big flaw with this argument was the psychologist was generalizing to the public from info about twins, and twins are not representative of the public. So E could weaken because it points to a subset outside of twins, and how people who aren't twins have inclinations not affected by genetic origins. I see why D is correct but also still struggle to see how E couldn't also weaken?

@kbrassea Ah I see. So what your saying is even if the argument failed to address specifically the reduction in risk of stroke conferred by the level of consumption in the recent study (even though it does but even if it didn't), this isn't really a flaw because a critics' argument can still be valid despite not directly refuting the proponents subject matter directly (because as u said, in bringing up additional considerations, in this case, the attempt at a cost benefit analysis on overall health, it sort of inadvertently reduces the validity of proponents by drawing a conclusion that weakens a potential inference from the study? I know for the correct answer, the analysis is that the critics think their bringing up an additional consideration the study didnt account for, but the reason it's flawed is bc this consideration isn't actually relevant to the study, as binge drinkers are obviously different from ppl who regularly consume.

My issue with A is that it fails to address how the critics are critiquing the study and coming to a conclusion that the study never claimed. The study justs suggests that 3 glasses decreases risk of stroke. That's it. They never claim it benefits overall health. But the critics say the study is bad because heart attack risk negates this decrease in risk of stroke, but the study never made a claim about overall health, so the critics are kind of arguing past what the study claims. Given A, even if they inappropriately attribute the consequences of binge drinking to 3x day, it still doesn't address the flaw that the critics are critiquing a claim the study never made. That's why I said D. I guess the critics do offer a caveat acknowledging the decreased risk of stroke. But isn't the flaw I named stil valid?

i was definetly tempted by D, but ended up chosing A because my issue with D is that just because these businesses have invested most heavily in computer technology, doesnt mean their relying on computet technology. maybe for some reason these businesses dont use computers for their business at all, but they invest in computet technology because its their family members company and they want them to succeed (some nepotism shit idk).