I got this wrong and understand why C is right, but I'm still confused by the stimulus.

Here is how I understood it:

ULs: multinational control (MC) -> deflated wages (DW)

Author: ULs don't want DW, so they would oppose MC.

Author: We should reject that MC -> DW

My confusion is that the ULs argument as described in the first sentence is not prescriptive - it does not say: because MC -> DW, we should oppose MC. It just says MC -> DW. So why should them having any opinions about MC or DW mean that we shouldn't believe MC -> DW?

Obviously the question stem states that the reasoning is flawed and I think that this understanding is still compatible with C being right, but it just seems like an extremely strange argument and I'm wondering if I'm reading it wrong. It does not seem like a simple case of attacking the source/motivation as the video explanation implies.

@wgresh Yes but C doesn't say ALL contributions were made from the love of discovery alone, it just says MANY were. The stim says MANY significant contributions were made by amateurs and since all amateurs are motivated by a love of discovery alone, it follows that many significant contributions were motivated by a love of discovery (ie, those that were made by the amateurs). Hope this helps lol!

@kyoungmokim846 I was thinking the same LOL

I got it right but B tripped me up bc exposure to allergens in infancy (or at least peanuts lol) can reduce your chance of developing the allergy. In that case, B could kind of be supporting the stimulus because it would be saying that even though children in small families were less likely to have allergies due to being exposed to allergens young, children in large families were still less likely to develop allergies bc of exposure to germs.

@tarayangg Yes. I had to read it like 3 times lol

@laurenbourg1118 There was a ton of practice on identifying premises, conclusions and context in the Foundations

@LsatFootpad I misread it the same way and find it confusing that the second part of the stimulus wasn't mentioned until after an answer choice was introduced

@404BrainNotFound I did the same, and considered "pandas that relocated to this part of the forest" to be the domain

I was so confused on #7 because I thought it was saying the CHARACTERISTICS were discussed in paragraph 2 not the PAINTERS. I was like where in paragraph 2 does it mention these? Lol

@Dbarsemian @natcat I was thinking "since none of them have devised a suitable plan" was a premise for "this is not a sustainable solution." I get that grammatically it directly supports "they should stop producing food waste" but I feel like it also supports that its not a sustainable solution, making it a sub-conclusion.