What threw me off about answer choice A and made me find AC C more attractive was the wording in A. The phrase “perform maneuvers with their cars” felt too vague—it could refer to backing out of a parking space, but also pulling in, parallel parking, using a roundabout, etc. It wasn’t specific enough.

On the other hand, answer choice C clearly refers to maneuvering a car out of a parking space while another car is waiting to enter it. That felt more relevant and specific to the scenario.

It also made me question the premise of the original argument. Maybe people aren't being possessive of their parking spots—maybe it just takes time and care to back out when someone’s waiting to take your spot. So the delay might be due to difficulty, not intention.

If I were under time pressure, I feel like I’d choose C, but I’m struggling to get a solid grasp on causal reasoning questions like this. #help

Help! I'm confused by the wording in this answer.

I was originally going to choose answer choice B, but this part of the explanation confused me: "[not native to North America]."

I thought that meant the plant shouldn't be native to North America but then the answer seems to say it should be. Is this a double negative?

For example, Coreopsis is a shrub, but it's native to North America, so does that mean it doesn't meet the condition?

I understand why the answer is correct overall, but the phrasing about not native is really throwing me off. This is why I changed my answer last minute.

What would a suitable premise be for the alternative example then? Does it have to say something about tigers?:

“Premise”: Not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet.“Conclusion”: Tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people