@am08 The curve was breaking, I see this as an attempt to fix the curve. They can't have a world where people continue to do better and better at this test. Removing highlighting means that it is harder to keep track of information. Removing the elimination means that we have to better keep track of alternative faulty arguments all mentally, neither of those sound that different from the skills needed in law school. or law. When we are arguing before a judge we have to be able to keep track of the information as it is coming to us.

@JacobKnapp01 I think you are assuming too much about what a revolutionary party is. Firstly, the stim says, "the revolutionary party" the article "the" denotes a particular referent. We don't know anything about this referent. It could be that it was founded as the revolutionary party, but has since over the years, moderated, much like the UK's labor party. Or it could be that the party did have truly revolutionary goals, but that those goals are still not as grand a scope as the power assumed they have by their critics.

The parties, goals may be to revolutionize the market place, and they achieved that very quickly. But the critics say that the party committed genocide.

No one would argue nationalizing the economy isn't a radical shift, but it is also totally possible to be powerful enough to nationalize the economy, but not powerful enough to commit genocide.

Fundamentally, your error seems that you are assuming too much in the stim. They say revolutionary party, and goals, but you don't know what they are or what they entail.

You know what they say about assumptions, they make an ass out of you and me.

@CeliaAcosta Empathic does. Emphatic does not. The wonders of english spelling. LOL

@AmyWong I really see where you are coming from. I think I have an explanation.

The question was which argument is MOST discrediting.

Answer C says, "hey, these binge drinkers may be drinking 3+ shots of vodka, that would be incongruous with the 3 wine drinkers. And that's true, but a already says that and more.

Answer A. says we made the mistake of assuming binge drinkers are like persons who regularly consume three drinkers of wine each day.

They are not analogous.

C says they are not analogous in a this particular way, assuming that the binge drinkers are drinking different liquors.

I think that's why I marked A. Its a stronger version of C. But there are issues with C as well. C assumes without evidence that there are no differences, with benefits AND risk. The text does give some weak justification to think there is a difference. We have a study showing wine is healthy. It may be weak justification but that means that there is.

Feel free to give me a better reason though. I am not too pleased with my discrediting of answer C.