Please Add Me!

B is incorrect due to the premise of the passage being about a thought experiment - we don't care about the realities of being able to ignore or not ignore ones original position.

C is correct because the section states that everyone should have a minimum amount of the goods, and if some are willing to have NONE, then not everyone wants or will have the minimum amount.

So a question for this answer: how do we know that the sugar substitute used in this study is one of the ones that exacerbates the symbtomes. Some, but not all?

so i immediately knocked a from the options due to it using the term "eliminated" as apposed to just avoiding or decreasing consumption. avoiding doesnt neccesarily imply a total elimination...so thats where my logic screwed up

Question: I got this question wrong because I assumed that the word "should" implied that both officers had met the initial criteria of having an exemplary record. Hence why I knocked out A from my intial guess

Does anyone know why my blind review is off for this?