I didn't see exactly what the sufficiency/necessity confusion was but got the right answer based on process of elimination. I thought the problem was that the people who believe if you're indicted you should resign obviously also believe if you're convicted you should resign, so the error was separating into two groups what was actually concentric circles.

@linyang55 Yea, I thought the exact same thing. I mean culture has changed the way our biology works too. I picked D because I thought that being able to differentiate behavior in an animal that is separated from us for millions of years is more of an indication that it is biological rather than cultural. But then again I guess in a hypothetical society with integration of chimpanzees that wouldn't be the case. Overall a really bad question. 

I was not able to make to connection between online searching and increased online access. For some reason these were sepereate ideas in my head.

I thought it was C because if ineffective treatments are becoming more common, then more people will have X, therefore requiring more treatment. I was doing a 5 star drill so ignored the obvious answer in E because I thought it was too obvious, and thought that maybe the total amount of money on treatment could go down, while this specific treatment could go up or stay the same.

I thought that the amount of quotations were a sign of neutrality, but I guess not.

I'm reading through these comments and I still don't understand how the argument "Our devices are easier for drivers to use, and hence they are safer" is not conditional. Can someone explain that?

I thought that the two proposals were "it is wrong that humans could not have evolutionarily adapted to cooked foods" and "selection led o humans being unable to eat raw foods"... Why is that wrong?

For some reason I thought it was talking about two different people's columns

If, instead of concluding that they will go home, C said something like "Since there is not a single restaurant in the area that all three of them like, they will probably not visit a restaurant that night", would it be correct?

Hi I have a question. If D said something like: Most accidents involving teenagers occur at night instead of the afternoon, could that work? I chose it because people tend to get sleepy in the evening, is the question wrong because it's not specific enough, or something else?

Ok this confuses me for several reasons. I thought "main cause" was synonymous with "most", as said in the first sentence. Economic factors-> treating rudely-> discouraging questions -> perception of negligence and carelessness. So I chose A. But people in the comments are saying that the stimulus didn't mention the main cause? Isn't it that people think their doctors are negligent and careless? I guess the problem is that it never said that economic factors were the main cause of rudeness.

Also for E, I didn't think that carelessness, negligence or rudeness was enough to justify "not caring". I think you could be all of those things and still care about your patients.

I misunderstood this to be in the perspective of the employee so I chose E

I got this question right but it confused tf out of me. Honestly I still don't understand why B is right. It's more right than the others, sure, but who cares about quantities when the law is about concentration? If B is true, then the law doesn't make much sense in the first place. Why not a law that regulates by mass rather than concentration?

I got this wrong twice because I didn't understand the argument was comparative, glossed over the sentence about the producer's ad :(

I chose B because I did not think that the author concluded that there was evidence against the hypothesis. I assumed he thought it wrong simply due to the lack of positive evidence. So I chose B.

For some reason I couldn't connect "few becoming more efficient" with "more time organizing activities" so I chose D.

I think I got this wrong (I picked A) because I misunderstood what the argument is talking about-I thought it was explaining the difference between the two lakes that we had to do instead of the role of the fishing ban. Kinda obvious in hindsight, I did consider B but decided against it because I thought "well, that still dosent explain why the fish are declining in the other lake".

I don't get it. Is the amount of money earned not different from profit? I could make 1200 selling a computer I spent 1000 on and I would earn 1200 but only profit 200. This is why I dismissed A and went for B, which I interpreted as saying "if the manager thinks he can sell twice as many low-end models as last year, he's wrong".

Can someone explain where I went wrong?

@EdwardZ77 But how can the manager assume that he will sell twice as many low-end models as last year (if that really is what he is saying)? That is clearly a flaw no?

Ok but what if I actually do want to go to law school for the "wrong" reasons like salary and job security? I wouldn't say its the path of least resistance, I'm sure it'll be very hard, but I don't really have a reason for going to do with morals or ethics

@chrispy I believe you get paper to write on not sure though

@MK2323 Ok I think I see it now, its that the tech isn't saying that specifically heath research is doing something unique, just that it is bad. I guess that's where I went wrong

Can someone explain why E is wrong? I got this right on blind review so I understand that C is the better answer. But how is E unsupported?

The only feature of mice in health research we know about is that they are in small cages. The tech argues that these conditions are abnormal. So I assumed that larger cages are the norm, or at least that the small cages are the abnormal part. How is this unsupported???

#help

I got it right, but isn't D a little too strong? Of course it is the least wrong out of the answers, but the stimulus does not seem committed to denying that jewels should be priced by, for example their size.

Well, I thought it said 75% of people... Honestly not sure if I would have gotten it even if I read that lol. Tough one for sure.