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

This is what I tell myself, though it may just be cope lol.

If you're getting the question wrong initially but correct during BR, then your issue is simply timing. Not a small issue, of course, but one that can be overcome by practicing.

TLDR - just continue practicing! The timing will come along.

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.

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?

It helps me to take the stimulus quite literally. It doesn't specify that only award can be given out, so we shouldn't assume that.

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.