Yikes L5. Two conditions must be met, otherwise no. Structure matters most here than the language used.

POE for this one. Sneaky ass question.

@Nathan1138 Well, they do link the two in the last sentence.

Right by POE

Yeah no this is a question you skip.

The best way to understanding this is that "heavy winter rainfall" doesn't mean "sustained rainfall".

Stimulus says, "Often claim"

B says, "Sometimes offered"

Very tricky word choice.

Yeah, A is right cause wtf does it matter that they aren't available to consumers?

I feel like some people were just tired or not paying attention to this one. The argument is trying to say that frightening experiences are more remembered than nonfrightening. C, however, states that pleasurable experiences have the same effect as frightening experiences, undermining that claim.

The situation is that there's an incentive by the government that gets taken advantage of that leads to an unintended consequence

C matches because it has an incentive (a prize) and an unintended consequence (lower profits).

I lowkey guessed on this one, but anyway, D is right because it states that the crime rate fell overall by 30 percent in the country, so the crime also fell in the city, an alternative factor besides the chief's strategy.

No way this is a L5. Pay attention to the stimulus. The more distant we study, the less useful it becomes in studying the present. Answer choice A is the only choice that's about present and past.

Yes, these texts are made intentionally dense to confuse you. Simply, the problem is:

How do we fund the 600k?

Two options: taxes or firing workers

The correct answer will dismiss both options, which is what E does. We can NOT tax people and NOT fire people if we just use the workers more effectively.

Lucky guess.

Bad question, but I can see where it's coming from. Identical twins are people who look alike. When you observe a twin of yourself, it's like looking at yourself, a reflection. This is similar to the study in the stimulus. Well played.

Yeah, this is tough, but POE does wonders sometimes. The other choices besides E are just factually wrong or assuming things that aren't needed.

POE is unnecessary. The author concludes that the nations stating their oil reserves were unchanged are wrong. Well, we have to assume that during that time, they had to have done something to the oil fields in order for them to change AT ALL, hence B.

Don't bother with any answer that isn't about the dean's claim that the school helped the students get jobs.

Drugs combat depression by stimulating left lobe activity. Thus, one's general disposition is a result of lobe activity.

L5? HOW? Alright, so the conclusion is that wood-burning stoves are more dangerous than open fireplaces. But, are they really? Perhaps, there is a disadvantage of open fireplaces that outweighs any disadvantage to wood-burning stoves. Answer C is just that.

POE folks. All the other choices (B, C, D, E) weaken the idea that the new pesticide was helpful in reducing insects.

L5 my ass. The conclusion suggests that North Americans should drink red wine like the French. The reason is that they'll be healthier. But, while this may lower the risk of hearth disease, it could incur other problems. Some outsider knowledge actually helps in evaluating this. Alcohol is toxic to the liver, and too much of it could pave way for liver issues.

The argument assumes that anytime people are dissatisfied with their legislative representatives, those representatives are simply doing what they were elected to do. This is weak in that there could be other reasons for dissatisfaction among voters.

This should be a L2 or 3. The conclusion is that data on the effects of the weed-killer are misleading. How could they be misleading? Maybe it's because they haven't been tested in the real world, only in a lab. B is basically that.

@:D Same boat