@xiaozhouyu72 The general principle is, "It is undemocratic for people to live under a government in which their interests are not represented." Rossi appeals to this principle in her premises, "since sometimes the interests of children are different from those of their parents." This is why A is correct. Rossi never substitutes the premises for rationale of a policy. She just describes a problem, and makes a conclusion based on what should be the case given the general principle stated at the beginning of the argument.

This requires the biggest assumption ever lmao. Like, if one didn't know that heart disease can be prevented through cardiorespiratory exercises, then this question would stump them too. The only reason one would get this correct is knowing that B should've said "prevention of heart disease" instead of "development of heart disease". The context leads one to believe that heart disease is, in some part, caused by high blood cholesterol. The relationship between BLOOD CHOLESTEROL levels and cardiorespiratory health is not common knowledge. WTFFFF

I think every analytic is helpful (even if available out of curiosity), but I don't think knowing expected accuracy is helpful given that we should strive to get 100% accuracy regardless of what is expected at our level of performance. Practice makes perfect, so just knowing my actual accuracy on each question type is helpful; expected accuracy is nice to know.

Well, I first approached this question by finding the flaw, which is that the scientist falsely assumes that because just because something is commonly accepted, it MUST be not bad. So, we have to find the answer choice that attacks this assumption. I'm looking for an answer choice that says, "The scientist takes for granted that just because something is commonly accepted , it MUST have no detrimental consequences." Answer B does just that. C is wrong because it actually strengthens the argument. If the science assumed that other scientists who accept the argument for social reasons also consider scientific evidence before accepting the argument, the science writer's argument is actually more likely to be true. He/she also doesn't make this assumption.