I just came here to say bravo to whoever wrote that first essay. It was fantastic and genuinely moving.

Question 7 was cruel man. Coming down to whether or not people know a pretty obscure word like preponderance. If you do it's an incredibly easy question as the answer is explicitly stated, if you don't, welp too bad, better hope you can definitively eliminate all the other answers (spoiler, you likely can't because they're designed to seem plausible and you have limited time)

I feel like answer B wasn't given enough attention. The stimulus says the world bank evaluates based on 2 criteria, 1:How difficult it is to comply with regulations and 2: How difficult it is to pay taxes. But in the explanation you imply they're only going to look at how difficult it is to pay taxes, which isn't true.

B is hard because as you said, we know there is an improvement of criteria 2 and thus we want to know if criteria 1 has become more difficult. If the answer is no, then it confirms that there will be a net increase in the country's ranking (provided small and mid-sized businesses are representative of the hypotheticals). And if the answer is yes, it has become more difficult then we know at least one of the regulations alluded to in criteria 1 has become more difficult, potentially to the point where it offsets the improvements from criteria 2.

The reason B is wrong is because regardless of the answer, it is not helpful. If the answer is no, we still need the assumption stated in answer D for it to be helpful, therefore D is the better answer.

If the answer is yes, it has become more difficult, then we need to know by how much and whether that offsets the gains from criteria 2. The stimulus does not provided either of these answers, therefore it is not helpful.

This is why B is wrong, not because it's evaluating the wrong thing, it is evaluating a subset of regulations, specifically tax regulations.

This question becomes a lot easier if you realize that the argument never actually says Woodburning stoves PRODUCE more creosote. It simply says that the smoke travels more slowly, so more creosote is DEPOSITED in the chimney. It is entirely possible that open flames produce lots more creosote, but that the smoke travels up the chimney fast enough so that the creosote is not deposited in the chimney.

As soon as you realize this you can almost immediately rule out A B and D, and E is very clearly irrelevant.

A) They produce less creosote, okay so? Does that mean they deposit less? We don't know.

B) Again, production of creosote is merely 1 necessary condition for it building up in the chimney, we also need to know how much of that produced creosote is deposited on the chimney walls. We don't know.

D) Same as A. So? Do we care? How much stays in the chimney!!!!?? we don't know.

E) So what? I rarely use skateboards or tricycles. Does that mean skateboards aren't more dangerous than tricycles? or vice versa? Irrelevant.

C) This is correct because the argument states that Woodburning stoves are more dangerous because they produce a substance that can cause accidents. In other words, the likelihood of accidents increases. But C introduces a new variable, the SEVERITY of the accident. This calls into question the argument that increased likelihood of accident = more dangerous because it introduces the possibility that the accidents caused by woodburning stoves are less severe like a mild burn, whereas the accidents caused by open flames are something like 3rd degree burns or death.

Does this definitively mean that Open fire places are more dangerous than wood burning stoves? No. It kind of depends on how interpret "dangerous". Do you place more emphasis on frequency of accident or severity of the accident? Regardless, the argument is now more debatable and less clear than it was previously, thus it is weakened.

I'm confused, why is the NYC -> (FT or PP) embedded at all?

Is it not logically the same to say if NYC -> FT or PP?

What is the difference ?

"Who cares, I'm growing potatoes. Go starve." This made me laugh lol