Rereading the answer choice C and the third paragraph finally made me realize that the "reconsidering their lack of a long-standing Spanish-language cultural past in the Americas" is actually more like what the spanish poets did. because they lacked such cultural past, the spanish poets use their work to in a way to modify and romanticize their own history and even return to an ideal culture of the distant past.

Since I was able to read the passage and answer choice very carefully, I was able to immediately looked back on how the author pointed how the much of legal education "can give a law student the impression that the practice of law consists mainly in analyzing past cases..." Instead of treating it as some mere fact, i was able to see that the author was pointing how such approach is flawed and in a way detrimental for the law students. Therefore, "skill in locating references to court decisions on an issue involving a particular statute regarding taxation" was not just something that was unsupported but the it was a typical type of practice that the author was criticizing.

Here is thing. I got the correct answer, and I merely thought that choices A, B, D, and E would weaken the argument. Thats why I thought that out of all five answer choices, A was the best choice because it made the most sense and gave test takers the opportunity to explore the possibility that egypt's kingdom was caused by environmental catastrophe.

Aside from C, can you consider the other fours choices as possible potential answer choices that strengthen answer choices, since they point out other factors that lead to world hunger, even more than lack of meat does?

Answer choice E would definitely have been a GREAT answer choice for a necessary condition question.

One important question. was another major significant factor that made D not the correct answer choice the fact that it stated "Every pet the Gupta family has ever owned has been a fish or a parrot" while stimulus makes it absolute that amanda wrote both blues songs AND punk rock songs. D allows the possibility that the family had only fish or only parrot as well.

I personally feel like it would have been much easier for the people to select E right away, if the question asked something like "what is the main purpose of the third paragraph?"

Just curious. Would answer choice A be a good example of strengthening an argument, since it shows how much the competing electricity producers has a vested interest in seeing the proposed building to not come to fruition.

The incorrect answer choices are basically ones that would strengthen the argument, because it provides other ways that could maintain or increase world hunger even if every single person in the world decide not to consume meat.

I personally believe think answer choice E should have been worded as "overlooks the possibility that..." since from the stimulus, we cannot determine if the future conduct might be true or not.

Regarding answer choice C, i can see why this was the correct answer, because if C was true, Foamy Soda would be inclined to increase its prices instead, since production costs (basically expenses) have increased.

@Derekt19 First, The stimulus mentions total of two alternative approaches to requiring bicycle helmets - constructing more bicycle lanes and educating driver. Also, the question only tells you to identify the role of "driver's education" only - which is simply ONE of the two approaches suggested by the singletary that the city should have taken if it truly cared about maintaining the bicyclists' actual safety. So then, the stimulus technically mentioned two examples to support his conclusion while the question only asks you to identify one of those two supports (which is the partial support).

i think the answer choice A was truly flawed, because the choice can be viewed as presuming that the trees are the ONLY plants - nothing else - that absorb carbon dioxide. Even if planted trees emit carbon dioxide, other plants - such as native grasses - could simply absorb that carbon dioxide. Therefore, the stimulus is assuming that in those several countries, trees were the only ones being planted for the purpose of absorbing carbon dioxide and replacing other, albeit more effective plants.

@JiyoonLim I personally think the better necessary assumption would be " I have access to all cafes in my town", "I have not been prohibited from entering any cafe in my town", or "I know where all the cafes in my town are located".

I think the reason why some people would think that B may strengthen the argument instead, because they might misinterpret this answer as a reason why these new experimental educational programs with parents as the children's first teacher may be effective and successful in improving these children's school performance. I am one of those.

The answer choice C would definitely have been a great answer choice that strengthens the stimulus' choice. Despite not being 100% certain that there is a direct causal relationship between evoking emotions and bias, we can reasonably deduce that those who oppose the freeway can simply appeal to people's emotions to reinforce their points instead of providing legitimate, practical, and logical reasons why building a freeway would not be a good thing.

I would even say that answer choice E may be good answer choice for strengthening the stimulus' argument, because anger could potentially lead that driver to become a bit possessive of the parking space and feel inclined to leave the parking space much more slowly just to spite the impatient honking car.

Just one question. Would answer choice "C" be a good answer choice for a strengthening argument in a way compared to other answer choices?

The first time I did this question in lawhub, I was very confused and chose the wrong answer. I tried my best to figure out why this answer choice (C) was the correct one, and it seems I kept making head canons why this was the answer. But finally looking at this video, I realized that the stimulus was doing a causation format like "A causes B... B causes C... so ultimately A causes C". I think the one sentence that really threw me off was the "In the case, either the Coffee Shoppe will begin selling noncoffee products or its coffee sales will decrease". First time, I interpreted that as "coffee shoppe will sell noncoffee products or else, coffee sales will decrease"; but in actuality, the stimulus meant it as the "increase in prices will lead to two possible outcomes."

In example #1, I still believe that "its" should be replaced with "their", despite our grammar intuition and experience. I feel like this would help clear confusion among some students who may mistake the "its" for something singular like "sand".