I am in the low to mid 160s, and would not mind going though questions with you. I'm taking my October test on Saturday, but after that I wouldn't mind.

What could help with figuring out what exactly 'well above' means? I considered C, but thought that it may not work because 'well above' seemed vague, and I was not sure if a difference of a few hundred degrees Celsius was considered well above. After reading the answer back and doing BR, my question may sound silly: Celsius is a greater scale than Fahrenheit, so the difference between a hundred degrees on a Celsius scale is a lot. But in the moment, my brain was not thinking with that level of clarity. Sometimes ambiguity is tricky, and I know that with practice we can fine-tune our radars for it, but any tips or pointers for these kinds of scenarios?

@Stas1973 I don't think leaving the room implies there will be a chain of events. A chain of events is just a sequence of events, but a sequence of events could be totally incoherent, the only thing necessarily coherent would be that one occurred after the next, but coherence is more than that. I think the answer lies in what actually provides a possible explanation and what does not.

@Hanifa I struggled with this too, but at the end of the day, this question is about what fits best. I say that because this means you can kinda inject new information into the stimulus. I kind of looked at it like an explanation question, but without forgetting the aspect of conformity. Although this info does not necessarily imply that the person who left the room presumed the dream was coherent, it certainly implies the presumption was possible. on, and that could explain why the person constructed a coherent dream from a totally random set of responses that was never actually pointing to a dream. In comparison to the rest of the questions, it is far better. I chose B because that presumption kept me hesitant about A, but ultimately the question was not asking me to make a valid conclusion of what happened, rather to provide a plausible explanation. I think that this beats B because of the obvious mechanism that explains how the scenario could have occurred. B also requires assumptions, and worse, it does not help provide a resolution as to why the more likely event occurred. A provides a clear possible explanation; B just tells us that coherence is more likely, but you are still left with the question of WHY that is.

I think the explanation for E is partially wrong. The only part that is sufficient is the reasonable expectation. The second condition in the or statement is not just about caused harm, but more specifically intended harm. Nothing about E implies intention.

I understand why B is correct, the soft language makes it supportable based on the sentences in the final paragraph. However, I do not see how we can easily rule out E. The first 2 and final sentence of the final paragraph imply that "the episode of bulb prices going up and then down" can be explained by the fundamentals. Fundamentals are real economic values/information, which would mean that the behaviors are not irrational, and not based on speculation. Given that, how can we say that E is wrong because the episode or the rise and fall are both being said to be explained by fundamental/rational things and not speculation, and mcckay in the first paragraph sees the entire rise and fall as a bubble.