What does the author believe? - This is the conclusion.

Why does the author believe this? - This is the support.

I chose AC A because it was the only answer that addressed both wolves and deer. Every other answer addressed only deer or only wolves.

The passage makes a claim about what some people believe, so if the AC doesn't make a claim about what some people believe and instead makes a claim about the world at large, you can eliminate it. Between AC B and C, only C correctly chains the logic. If AC B were to say "since one could think that an animal is incapable of feeling guilty only if one thought the animal had no conception of morality," then you could chain the first sentence with the last sentence. Since its actually reversed, the first sentence cannot connect to the last sentence. Only AC C does this correctly.

Clarissa says observations have to be stated in quantitative terms, then it can be analyzed seriously. Myungsook says observations have to be analyzed thoroughly, then it could be put into quantitative terms. They disagree about the order in which observations are carefully considered and when it should be stated in quantitative terms. AC D is what Myungsook agrees with, Clarissa disagrees.

The difference in AC C and E, other than the first half (convinced vs. persuaded), is the inclusion of "would" in the second half of AC E. The last sentence of the passage is a conditional statement: If such systems exist, then scientists would be forced to question one of the basic principles of science. AC C assumes that numerous unstable systems do exist, and thus warrants questioning a basic principle of science. AC E, by including "would", leaves room for the conditional. Its saying if numerous unstable systems exist, then scientists would have to question a basic principle of science.

AC A talks about individuals showing "greater economic responsibility" whereas AC E talks about countries showing "greater economic health." AC E is a better answer both in scope (individuals vs. countries) and also in talking specifically about economic health vs. responsibility. Greater economic responsibility doesn't necessarily translate to a better economy overall. Greater economic health does more strongly imply a better economy overall.