This question is so tricky because I feel like in other questions, we are 100% expected to make logical leaps/inferences just like the trap answer B. "Last refuge" = "will be extinct" seems like a reasonable conclusion to draw, especially given other questions where we're expected to "read between the lines."

I do see how the strict formal logic analysis does not support B. But damn, this was hard!

I would like of it like this. After answer choice D, ask yourself: so what?

Instabilities in wind flow will negate the effect of global warming on the formation of tropical storms

Okay? What does that mean? What can we conclude from that statement? It means that the claim in the context is not true. It means that global warming is not more likely to cause intense tropical storms. That is the main conclusion, which is paraphrased in answer choice E.

Answer choice D could be considered a sub-conclusion, but it still lends support to another claim in the stimulus. It's a reason to believe that global warming will not cause this effect. If winds are negating the effect of global warming, then obviously global warming isn't likely to make things worse. It's a silly inference to make, but that last part is the main conclusion.

Answer choice E, however, if you ask "so what?", there's not really any more information we can conclude. It's the end of the line. Any other inferences we make would be speculative because they aren't found in the stimulus.

Also, just as another tip, the conclusion is almost always after the word "but"

Was anyone else confused about AC A because the stimulus contains the phrase “over time”? I initially felt as though the fact that boat noise causes hearing damage over time lends support to the idea that older whales would have more hearing damage.

I guess this rests on my assumption that “over time” is referring to the whales’ lifetime, but I can’t think of another more reasonable interpretation. I guess maybe it’s a stretch because the stimulus doesn’t directly talk about young vs. old whales, but curious if anyone else got caught here.

Thinking hypercritically, I’m wondering about the impact that the rain has on the causal chain. I understand that if the mining company hadn’t caused the chemical leak, then nothing else on the causal chain would have happened. But heavy rainfall is what CAUSED the chemicals to be washed into the water—something the mining company did not have anything to do with. Couldn’t it be argued that if not for the rain (an outside factor), then the causal chain would be weakened?

Failure to seal > leach into soil

rain

rain > wash into ocean > dolphins poisoned

The leaching of chemicals into the soil did not cause the rain. So isn’t there an interruption here in the complete causal chain from mining company > dolphins dead???

Thinking about this in terms of an answer choice that says something like “no heavy rain had occurred during the time of the event” etc.

That's because you're treating it like it's an argument about sets. It doesn't work that way with conditions, even though the logic works in the same way. New restaurants opening is sufficient for living standards to improve. IF new restaurants open, then living standards will NECESSARILY improve. Or, in other words, living standards improving is a necessary result of the new restaurants opening. You can't just flip the conditions around like you can when dealing with sets. Does that help?

I had the same problem, and this is how I managed to work it out. Going to the store is sufficient to prove that you bought milk. If you go to the store, you're buying milk. Period. Just like being a cat means that you are a mammal.

Buying milk is necessary IF you go to the store. As in, buying milk is something that must necessarily take place if you go to the store. Much like being a mammal is necessary if you are a cat.

I totally understand where you got tripped up--she could hypothetically buy milk from somewhere else and not go to the store. But given the information in the sentence, that doesn't matter. If she goes to the store, that is sufficient to imply that she is buying milk. Buying milk is absolutely necessary if she goes to the store.

Does that make sense?

5.1 I feel like it would be more helpful to think of the comparative quality here as being "which one is more during the ice age"

I understand that, specifically, what is being compared is the amount of precipitation. But because the comparative contains a qualifier, which indicates the specific scenario in which the comparison is being made, I feel like it clarifies things to include the qualifier in the quality being compared.

Then it would work like this:

Step 1. Identify A v. B.

A: amount of Earth's precipitation that falls over land

v.

B: amount of Earth's precipitation that falls over the ocean

Step 2. Identify what we're comparing

Which one is more during the ice age?

Step 3. Identify the "winner."

A, the amount of Earth's precipitation that falls over land "wins" meaning there's more of it.

Does anyone see a problem with including the qualifier in step 2 like this?