just wanna make this clear, any board member not opposing his appointment IS NOT the same as being supported by all the members. But i understand why this makes sense, so all good

I think B is a flaw, Morgenstern is assuming that the only rink in quitting is not finding another job. How is this not a flaw? Perhaps the real reason Brooks cannot accept the risks involved in quitting his job is for some other reason aside from not finding another one. Morgenstern assumes that's the only thing stopping him, and and then just jumps to his conclusion. Im so confused on why B is not right. The assumption that "The only risk in quitting is that of not finding another job" is quite tantamount for his conclusion.

Imagine this assumption negated, it simply would not make sense with Brooks' argument.

slightly confused on how AC D is not correct. We have this sentence that supports it... unless im reading it wrong. "Another reason the environmentalists give for their claims is that domestic spending can fall when a nation shifts money toward repayment of its debt. A nation may take funds away from health care, education, or improvements in such public services as water quality or sanitation."

bruh

this explanation OR question needs to be reworked. this goes against fundamental rules of statistics and comparing baseline groups to ensure there is no bias. either these answers are flawed, or your explanations are flawed.

Answer C does strengthen the argument, and in your response "starting productivity doesn't matter" is wrong, starting productivity does matter. Say Plant B was already less productive then Plant A, that would impact the findings.

Please fix the explanation.

I got this answer correct, but can someone explain how "fails to exclude" means fails to address the possibility. I feel like "fails to include" would be a better choice of words, no?

you know its a bad question when the majority (>50%) chose the wrong answer.

this is dumb

Please explain how the language of "responsible" does not imply a necessary condition. I was between B and C, and figured they included the language "responsible for the evolution..." to imply a necessary condition, regardless of the "many suggested."

This question is BS. We are meant to assume B applies but how would we know "single-celled" organism even applies. Regardless if we don't know if its multi-cell either, we cannot just assume this applies. For all we know, single cell organisms may be able to reproduce, but we have no indication that just because this occurs in a separate example it would follow here.