It seems like negating an answer is a pretty useful tip. Does it always work?

Shoot. I wish there were a way to know that we are about to attempt a very difficult question.

Although I should probably be taking each question equally seriously, so maybe it's for the best.

I eliminated D because it's only referring to a subset of newspaper column readers ("people who regularly read columns by syndicated political columnists").

Perhaps the instructor's reason for eliminating D is better than this reason, but this reason still works right?

I chained the rules as shown below. With this chain, answer C becomes obvious.

/insight -> /social process -> traditional -> rigid or artificial -> /effective

Is there a flaw with the chain above or the approach? Thanks.

Answer D specifies whales while the stimulus talks about deep-diving marine mammals (suing the whale as an example). Is this reason enough to eliminate D?

Isn't the biggest problem with B and D that neither mention exposure to germs? Neither make any attempt to strengthen the "exposure to germs as a child -> fewer allergies" connection.

This question was only a 150?! Yikes for me, then.

Checking my understanding: Is E wrong because it's changing the premise in the stimulus? The stimulus says we're in world without iatrogenic disease, but E is introducing iatrogenic disease into this world.

What do y'all think?

Lmao these are actually kind of fun.