Hey everyone, I realize the C explanation wasn't great and many are still confused so I figured I'd elaborate. C is wrong for the exact same reason B is, it is flawed and confuses sufficiency for necessity. I believe JY recognized the error because he alluded to it at the end of his explanation saying its a "terrible argument". But unfortunately he didn't explain why because he misread the answer, thinking it was saying something it wasn't and therefore wrong regardless. The answer begins with claiming that a grant guarantees a scientist's success (G -> S). They go wrong however, in the rewording of it, claiming that every successful scientist has a grant ( S -> G or /G -> /S). A clear inverse/negation error. Remember what the stimulus did was /S -> /A, reword: A -> S (in comparison to G -> S, reword S -> G). No logical errors made in our stim; hence, why the question stem does not imply there are any flaws. A is correct because it makes the same logical statement: /A -> /BL, reword: BL -> A. As you can see, they both properly make the contrapositive statement, unlike C. I hope this helps anyone still confused.

Hi so I know this was a while ago and maybe you already took your exam or forgot about this silly little question from 25 years ago, but I understand your confusion and I too struggled with eliminating A. But I ultimately went with C because the stimulus stated that it was only "typical" that sales were good those months. So, clarifying that the sales were not good despite typical trends remains consistent with the content in the stimulus since the two are not mutually exclusive. It's the same as saying most and maybe even weaker than that. If something is good most of the time, that doesn't mean it can never be bad! I hope that helps.

Hey, I know many people are still confused about why B is wrong, and not many comments have addressed it. B is an inadequate answer, as I understand it because B being correct relies upon the vital assumption that the scientist's salaries come out of the funding for the wetlands. While that may be true, it would also be completely reasonable for their salaries to be separate from the funding of the wetlands. I know it can be tempting to assume their salaries come out of the funding since they are researching the wetlands, but since they are commissioned by the government to do so, it isn't out of the realm of possibility they are separate. If they were hired by the wetlands preservation instead of the government, I think it would then be much more reasonable to make that assumption.

I can't be the only one who finds it hysterical he's named Weiner.