At first I was hella confused

I couldn't keep track of the conditionals while reading the stim from beginning to end but once I separated the premise(s) and conclusion and thought about the argument "in order" it came to me easy

Start reading it from the last line: You know they have to renovate, and if you don't renovate this year then next year's budget will be exceeded

Conclusion is adding this new idea that if you stay within this year's budget then next year's budget will be exceeded

The gap is obvious when I map it out in this order since for the conclusion to be true, it must be the case that this new idea of staying within this year's budget chains into don't renovate this year (which necessitates "next year's budget will be exceeded").

Formula:

P: not X -> Y

C: A -> Y

Assumption: A -> not X

This section is a joke and this question best epitomizes this

Stem asks to take the perspective of the U.S. historians, I immediately recognize from the passage their perspective is nationalist. If you intuitively understand the attitude of nationalist ideology (ie. "our nation is superior/important because this nation is ours"), (B) is clearly analogous. The other answer choices are not logically consistent with the nationalist perspective.

@Stas1973 I agree, I got this right well under time just by anticipating the correct answer to encompass the "nationalist" pathos (ie. "our nation is superior/important because this nation is ours")

@calliekoskovich You're right, I eliminated it pretty quick as I found the logic of the answer inconsistent with the passage

Remember that the stim is asking us for an AC that "most helps to justify the argument" so it's not the same as a Sufficient Assumption question, the correct answer doesn't have to prove the argument 100% true

Sometimes it helps to think about it intuitively. Let me explain:

(C) "The only reason for removing a work of art commissioned for a public space would be that the balance of public opinion is against the work."

Translation: IF it's a reason for removing a work of art commissioned for a public space THEN [the reason] would be that the balance of public opinion is against the work.

Deconstruct the Sufficient, what does a reason for doing X mean intuitively? It's basically rationale used to decide whether we should or shouldn't do something. So to simplify (C), it's really saying "if we should remove the work then it must be because the public opinion is against it."

This is a reversal of what Hector says, he says: "if public opinion of this sculpture is what you say, then it certainly ought to be removed."

This was cake for me, I'll put it very simply for ya'll. Ask yourself: Did A really assume ANY behavior that a human did = evolutionary psychology? HELL NO

That's how I quickly eliminated (B) and chose (C) which is an accurate restatement of what's in the passages

This was actually pretty easy, once you see there's two very similar ACs, your job is to distinguish them and knock out the obvious wrong answer. Here it's the correct AC focused on Evo. Psyc. and the wrong answer about Evolution Theory in general (B never questions evolution being real, it's like saying B is a creationist)

I chose E, am I cooked?

"If Pollution is a Problem" and "If Pollution exists" are NOT the same ideas, how are you overlooking this?

There is another obvious reason to eliminate E

The principle says in the necessary conditions that one must "HOPE OR EXPECT...benefit..." if one should criticize.

Answer choice E is only concerned with EXPECTING benefit but one can still HOPE for something while NOT EXPECTING. Answer choice E doesn't rule out the possibility that Jarrett could still hope to benefit someone w/o expecting to benefit someone.

@cwferrari "I went off vibes, it's E" nice