I understood the logic structure after reviewing it, the question and stimulus are just poorly worded. It seems like the wording was changed to substitute "because" for "hence".

What is the point of discussing a question you got correct?

@antitrust_fan No, comparatively metaphysics is straight forward. In fact I got 90+% in all four of my metaphysics classes and I have no idea what most of these questions are talking about. Honestly, these questions absolutely reflect the worst legal documents I have ever read. I worked in Engineering, so our legal documents were almost entirely either contracts or instructions. These read like the instructions that made machines explode regularly or resulted in OSHA violations regularly. According to the AI bot, that is intentional because most people write so terribly that the skill is figuring out what it is they are even trying to talk about.

I need to draw one of four conclusions from this apparently: 1) my degree is meaningless and all of my classes were a sham, 2) the questions are intentionally obtuse, or 3) all of my experience was meaningless and I failed at everything I ever worked on and somehow made a career or, lastly 4) there is a link between what the questions intend and what I am interpreting.

I feel like every single writer needs to spend a few years doing only the "Peanut butter and Jelly Sandwich Exercise", you write instructions step by step on how to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich and then have someone pretend that they have no idea what peanut butter, jelly, or sandwiches are and try to make one by only following your instructions. Most people absolutely fail the first like ten times.

Metaphysics is entirely simile or metaphor, most of metaphysics (except like maybe Hegel and some of Nietzsche) is just the author comparing two phenomena and then telling you how they are different. They start by drawing the overlapping set, then telling you all they things that are in one set, the other, or neither. Its almost entirely operant logic: P implies Q, therefore R; If X Then Y, ect.

This is a trick question, "because" is a transition word and in formal English it is treated as a conjunction like "and", "or", "therefore", "if", "then"... ect. They are using it grammatically incorrectly as a transitive verb here, where they mean "causes" rather than "because". Properly written that sentence should read; "Thus, people resent managers, this is caused by them resenting being evaluated subjectively." I would consider this to be an error on the test. Even the instructors explanation touches on this, and I find his reasoning that the concepts of "grouping subjective and evaluated" as separate concepts is barely logical, because it literally states "necessarily subjective". So on one hand test writers are being grammatically pedantic about adjective vs adverb, while improperly using the word "because" in their meaning. The only way that this could be justifiable is if the writer were to claim they were using it as in its arcane meaning as be-cause, like the word begot, or bereft. Where the prefix 'be' means 'as applied to' or 'due'.