I wasn't sure what "qualify" meant in this sense...oops.

Different evidence: language, music and mothers and infants

Different conclusions: whether it's an evolutionary advantage

Last sentence is the key:

"Moreover, the Coffee Shoppe can avoid a decrease in overall profitability only if its coffee sales do not decrease."

Coffee keeps increasing>less profit

No increase in coffee>can make profit (eventually)

"balanced muscle development is needed to maintain a healthy back"

So the opposite would be unbalanced, hence B.

Think about it this way: if you're receiving money from sponsorships to produce art, you might be less inclined to make more innovative works. That's kind of how I got my reasoning for C.

Woof, POE for this one brings about A.

No strengthen (except). A is talking about past elections, not why they won now. It's irrelevant.

"Nothing brings more recognition than overthrowing conventional wisdom."

Gee, maybe that's a good motivator.

WHAT THE HELL DO COMPUTER EXPERTS KNOW ABOUT BROAD THREATS TO LARGE INSTITUTIONS?

FML

B basically weakens the connection warming and gases have.

I'm actually surprised so many people had trouble with this one.

How tf is this a L3 question?! 😭

No, this is overly complicated and a bad use of AI. Do better.

They give you a sheet of paper on the actual test. I HIGHLY recommend writing this out and comparing it to the choices presented.

Stimulus:

Most>c

All>s, o, or both

Some>c, s and c, o

Correct answer E:

All>s, t, or both

Most>c

Some>c, t and c, s

The same thing, just with the first two parts switched.

I was going to go with C, but checked out E. I'm not so sure with C's certainty. E just makes sense.

Develop values means gaining through own efforts rather than being handed them by an external force. Hence, C.

To simplify:

A view is universally rejected

Another attack is launched on the view

The attack isn't a good critique of the view

Therefore, the view is more plausible than before

Weird logic, right? Whatever, C is the answer that follows this structure:

Bicycle engineers reject aluminum as a good frame compared to titanium

An engineer attacks that view

He's confused on something (faulty)

The view on aluminum makes more sense (more plausible)

I feel like I've heard of this kind of story before...

Industrialists view problems simply and this works

Farmers do this and create more problems

So, farming problems should be viewed complexly rather than simply, hence B

Counterexample: wolf example

conclusion: animals don't have rights

premise: only humans beings are capable of obeying moral rules

This is what A is basically

"self-contradictory"

"one cannot predict what has already taken place"

B tells of this impossibility the stimulus mentions

sigh

B: wrong. We don't know that.

C: wrong. Most? We don't know that.

D: wrong. They thrive only in this environment? No, too extreme.

E. wrong. The waste product doesn't ensure shit.

I was between A and E, but chose A because E believes that biting is effective, but we don't know that. A is more neutral.

New treatments! Yay!

Oh no! Those new treatments can increase the probability of someone getting infected!