On why D is incorrect:

Kevin's video alluded to something important that I overlooked. Yes, D requires assumptions (that the injured ppl were treated at the emergency depts, that the annual fatalities are not instantaneous deaths on the scene, etc.), but so does A-C. Yes, every AC requires assumptions.

E, however, works in favor of the argument. Any assumptions that could be made would still strengthen, or at best, not impact the conclusion.

The assumption I made incorrectly when reading the stimulus before entering the ACs is that funding was adequate 10 years ago.

If I had questioned this, I could have considered that if the funding was initially so low, tripling it wouldn't mean much.

Hello. I could use some help as to why B is incorrect.

The conclusion relies on the premise that 'the consumers are buying more durable goods than before.' So, if the premise is not true, the conclusion can't be true (in this instance).

Of course, there could be other signals that indicate economic growth in the future. But my understanding is that we should not assume that there are other signals.

It seems very clear that B must be correct.

Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!

Why E was not mentioned at the end of the second paragraph:

The passage says that Michelangelo had shown his contemporaries that great art can assimilate and transcend what came before. Nowhere does it say that Michelangelo is one of the contemporaries.

I fell for this so thought I would share in case anyone else does!

I was between A and E and ended up choosing A.

What is tricky about E is that, even if it is occurring elsewhere, that doesn't do much for George's argument. The conclusion states that it is already occurring... point blank. Say that this warm weather is occurring in Europe as well. How does that matter?

Hi!

What confuses me about A is that Russian is described as having more basic words for colours than does English (two for blue). Whereas the conclusion refers to languages with fewer basic words for colours than English.

I eliminated A because I thought it was inapplicable.

Thank you in advance for your help!

Hi! What confuses me about C is that we don't know whether joint injuries present themselves in other ways, such as, say, nausea. In that case, a person with a joint injury may become aware that they have this injury even if they do not experience swelling or pain.

Thank you for your help in advance.

I still don't understand why C weakens the conclusion. Even if the frontal lobe activity does not vary, how does that weaken the argument?

In my interpretation of the stimulus, maybe everyone is born with a frontal lobe activity, and it stays that way throughout their life. So what if it doesn't vary?

Thank you in advance for your insight.

I think the key to this question is recognizing when reading the stimulus that there is a problem between the premises and conclusion. Ok, group B did not receive free nutritious breakfasts, but what if they all went out to pay for a nutritious breakfast before work?

A allows us to guarantee the conclusion because it fills this gap. Group B did not all consume nutritious breakfasts.

I don't understand how B does not contract the premise (first sentence).

We can learn about the living conditions of a vanished culture by examining its language. B seems to question this by saying that, well, some languages may not follow this rule.

Thank you for your insight in advance!

I got this question wrong twice and after finally figuring out I thought I would share in case anyone else had the same process.

I initially chose D but now I realize that D contradicts the premises. D is referrring to investments that seem likely to provide return... but the stimulus says that they are these technologies are unlikely to provide return, period. That is why D is wrong.

The issue with E is that the second sentence of the stimulus says that etiquette does not necessarily oppose the expression of offensive ideas.

When I read E, it seemed to contradict this premise. According to the stimulus, etiquette would not ban name-calling as does the moderator. Perhaps name-calling would be appropriate in a certain circumstance of the panel discussion.

Would appreciate any insight, thanks.

Hi! I am still slightly confused why C is correct. Perhaps I am misunderstanding the conditional logic.

Premise: /resident AND /former-resident AND >$100 --> registered

Contrapositive: /registered --> resident OR former-resident OR <$100

The reason why I am confused is that I thought that C illegally reverses the contrapositive by putting /registered in the necessary condition. C infers from the last sentence that Brimley: resident OR former-resident --> /registered.

I don't understand why C 'must' be true.

Hi! I see why A,B,D,E are wrong, but there is a problem that is hard for me to overlook in C. C says that the letter to the editor "makes a claim about Judge Mosston's professional competence...." But does the letter really do this? It seems as though the claim is about Judge Mosston's fairness as opposed to his professional competence, which is too big of a distinction in my opinion. Am I misunderstanding something?