I thought that E was wrong because the court decided to reconsider the case as a result of the testimony, but that doesn't mean that was what their decision was based on.

I understand why B is correct, but I still don't understand how A is wrong. How is it not also the case that the Council member is also claiming that because the rest of the Council doesn't have proof for their theory about the courthouse (in this case would be a proof against the view, because it is an opposing theory) is in itself proof that the shoe factory would be a better shelter site?

I understand that we are saying the two events would be passing the law and the drop in crime but I was interpreting the two events as the drop in crime in the area effected by the law and the drop in crime in areas not effected by the law.

@ArthurMorgan omg I just finished RDR2 (the only thing I was able to do in my free time well doing this studying) and this comment cracked me up lol

This is very nite picky, but wouldn't the only valid inference in exercise one be C because we only know about Tom's six months of training in the force. Isn't it possible that the years of training doesn't only refer to training within the force? It could be cooking, driving, flying, ETC?