@WalterThePUG am I supposed to assume if its an experiment these people are Harvard level caliber scientists?????

okay but, coming from a statistics and Finance undergrad background. We learned correlation does not always prove causation and if so it would have to be SUPER concrete evidence from experimentation: R^2, Null & Alternative hypoth, etc. etc. Am I just overthinking or should I be going into drilling thinking: it just has to be assumed the correlation had to be enough for the author to state there is a solid hypothesis for this phenomenon? Or is my thinking all mixed up and i'm pulling outside information that would waste time come exam day? as this part of the module states there could be an alternative hypo for cause of lung cancer rather than tendency to smoke (asbestos) but that was controlled by throwing a proportionate amount into each group.

lol if I didn't know that "latter" is a more fancier way of saying second and using referential foundations from previous module of what "former" is referring to. I would've honestly not have gotten this right first go. Maybe I need to stick my head in a dictionary more right?????

I'm assuming in questions where there is two phenomenons that contract the main discrepancy (ad rev decreases, survival of MWR magazines grave doubt) the right AC will resolve both of the phenomenons and connect to the main discrepancy? Got this right on BR after swearing up and down A was the go to AC but saw it seemed vague after a second go.

@leonardjp SAME HAHA at first I elimated ACs: EDC and was like we have nothing from the stim to trust these. then I thought am I illiterate reading A and B and then diagrammed it and shot down B . Lol i get you I saw somebody below said they had a stroke reading the second half of the stim. Maybe I just need to read more books lol idek.

I chose A because I was saying to my self "This has to be a whole to part (division) fallacy" in my head i'm like "No way this president is practically saying if there from a top 1 consulting firm they have to be the best therefore if we chose to only interview applicants from top 1 firms , when we make a selection of to hire then we are selecting the best consultants available" If anybody chose C you are technically almost right however it is written opposite. This is a complete trap answer because it sounds reasonable but you need to visualize it first before going ahead and clicking it. During my first run of this question and doing POE I was left with A and C but at first C confused me because I said "that not what I thought but it was close"