I thought the same thing. One of those cases where I think the answer choice is just not well written.

this is one of those questions were the correct answer is kind of unsatisfying, but you can get there through brute-force process of elimination. At the end of the day, you just can't get around the fact that nothing, absolutely nothing, in the stim says anything about Saharan ants using pheromones to forage.

If I told you: "It's a nice day. However, a really big storm is coming" what would be the main message I'm trying to convey to you? Probably that a big storm is coming. The word "however" indicates that what came before was context for the main message.

C is a deliberately laid trap. The stim throws out an explanation for why this phenomenon supposedly does not occur in mammals, and it's actually a flawed explanation because there's no reason to believe that chromosomes would be a good explanation (assuming it's true that this phenomenon does not occur in mammals). HOWEVER answer choice c says that a particular explanation is ruled out, and that actually never happens in the stim. Clever question.

This is actually a great question. Sometimes it's hard to tell when it's safe to assume certain facts which are not explicitly stated in the stimulus. You do have to be careful about smuggling in assumptions from the outside world, and there is a way in which you have to treat each stimulus as a self-contained logical universe unto itself. However, in this case it is safe to assume that Tigers are mammals because not only is it common knowledge, but it is also strongly implied within the stimulus that Tigers are within the category of mammal.

The way I originally interpreted the bones of the argument was: because species can survive changes if they're not rapid, therefore the specific change in question (cutting down trees) is not a problem in itself. This felt to me like a necessary-sufficient flaw. D is the only answer choice which comes close to replicating that flaw, but it does not do so completely. However, the more I review this question, the more I realize that over-focusing on a logical flaw in the stim is a bit of a red herring because the question does not ask to identify a similarly flawed argument, only one that is most similar in general. If you view the answer choices through that prism, this question becomes much easier.

I selected E because in my mind, if several (even if several means a handful, say 5-6 subjects) still had nearsightedness, then that goes right to the question of whether nearsightedness disappears with age. If E is true, then clearly it doesn't. I was tempted by D, but didn't select it because the doctor's argument is IF nightlights cause, THEN the effect disappears. So why bother with an answer choice that goes at whether nightlights actually cause nearsightedness if the whole stim seems to leave space for the possibility that actually, nightlights don't even cause nearsightedness to begin with? I think that's what makes this so difficult, the stim itself is wishy-washy with respect to whether the cause even exists, but then seems to hand-wave that away with the word IF.

In my view, E is poorly written. I don't see much evidence that the sample is too small to be dependable, only that it is too small to make any sweeping conclusions about the Association as a whole. Saying that the sample is not dependable could imply that the data in the sample is inaccurate. But we have no reason to believe that the data is somehow wrong, only that it should not be used in a specific way, namely in order to make conclusions about the overall opinion of the Association. Maybe I'm getting too hung up on the meaning of the word "dependable" but the whole meaning of E shades differently if you interpret it the way I did, and I don't think my interpretation is terribly unreasonable.