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?

Please Add Me!

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

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

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.