But the only thing cohesiveness does to self-censorship is lower the likelihood of self-censorship out of fear of punishment. The passage never says cohesiveness lowers the likelihood of self-censorship in general, so how could we know that B's right?

@David Cutie I would have eliminated E using this because Speaker 1 didn't seem like he HAD to agree it was a risky venture. There's absolutely zero discussion of risk. "Likely to fail = risky" makes no sense

@markymymarkymark768 Wait..why would A be false even if it did talk about bill specific concerns? It's saying the compromises usually don't enable passage; that's more in line with the statements than not.

@SihanFan I think you answered your own question...

@MidoMashakel I hate that no time was spent explaining why C didn't conform to the rest of the paragraph. "Interestingly" isn't a word that always indicates a break/nonconforming piece of evidence.

Wouldn't a tadpole that has increasing its own total genetic representation as a priority want to preserve itself over preserving its siblings? I mean, that seems to square perfectly with the inclusive fitness theory, so why would C not be correct?

I heavily disagree with the explanation. Research is literature. Passage A mentions research on control. That's explicit enough. The "literature" referenced in passage B wasn't explicitly said to be about control, rather just the impact of the plant. I think that's why Passage B can't be said to mention it.

@MidoMashakel I meant weaken the claim that citation analysis would encourage good research

@MidoMashakel Obviously the AC is right and E is wrong, but I think a better reason for ruling it out is that it doesn't weaken the link between the premise and the conclusion, the premise being that researchers will prefer short-term projects over multiyear projects. Instead, E points out a wholly different reason that can be used to weaken the claim in the conclusion itself rather than the support the specific premise in the stimulus lends to the conclusion.

@Max Thompson But E does introduce a reason why citations might not accurately reflect the strength of the research. Whatever the scientific establishment may be, doesn't E still undermine the notion that citation analysis might encourage good research given that it points out a phenomenon that makes citations not a good benchmark for good research?

@ChiamakaIheoma The principle mentions candidates "differ"ing from her opinion, not necessarily disagreeing. If she holds an opinion on an issue and a candidate is indifferent on it, that candidate does not hold the same opinion she holds and therefore the candidate's opinion differs from her opinion.

If you're confused by this, just move on. The explanation overcomplicates things

So how do we know if we have "advanced logical reasoning"? Through a diagnostic? If so what diagnostic score should tell us we don't need to do the CC?

Starting today, took diagnostic last weekend. So excited!