if B said that

"Four companies have FAILED TO market a new food processing product; therefore, a fifth company will not be able to market a similar product."

would it be more correct than C? It involves 4 separate entities trying the same thing repeatedly (like separate theories in the stimulus), instead of 1 entity trying the same thing repeatedly (unlike the stimulus).

great but what allows me to assume that "draft" and "sketch" are interchangeable

I considered D, but then remembered a potential relationship between parkinson's and living near a golf course that i researched. What i took away from that research was this: the general population has a <1% chance of developing parkinson's. People who live near a golf course have a chance of developing Parkinson's that is closer to 1%. Therefore, there is a correlation (and likely causation), but it's still false that most people who live near a golf course will get Parkinson's. In fact, most won't. But their risk is still higher.

i ruled B out immediately when I read "exclusively" :( Does the argument really insist on absolutely 0 quackery? not even a little? you will do yourself more harm than good if you diagnose your medical condition by relying on 95% scientific papers and 5% quackery?

:') does the last paragraph not indicate that profitability correlates with lack of perfume quality?

Statement A: journalists ... claim that their investigation of x is an effort to improve society by (aka. because the effort causes/performs/does) z.

Statement B: In reality, however, the tactic (the effort to improve society) is detrimental to society.

Answer choice C: Statement A is cited as evidence often given for an assertion that Statement B concludes is false.

How on earth is C false?? Statement A cites evidence of a claim that investigation of x improves society, and Statement B says that investigation of x is detrimental to society. What am I missing here?

is anyone tripped up on "under its own weight." Isn't gravity pulling mass towards mass, so glass would flow downward under its own weight and also under the weight of every atom on top of it in the atmosphere ........?

it says "at least some" are not active, which allows it to be poassible all are not active in the town's artistic circles. if it had just said "some", could A have been correct? a person is either active or not active -- if you are not active, then you are active, and vice versa. so if 30% of a group are not active, 70% are active.....

why is D wrong?

could somebody rephrase this question for me? i can't even comprehend what the question is asking.

if jones's theory was an accepted theory..... would c be correct?

ugh. i assumed the parasite was contagious, which would make D an explanation for the causal relationship proposed in the stimulus: migrating allows butterflies to avoid parasites by allowing uninfected butterflies to physically distance themselves from infected butterflies.

how do you know this is not right:

/empirical --> /conceivable idea that would refute it

how do you know it must be instead:

empirical --> conceivable idea that would refute it

how does one infer that the "funding" E refers to is specifically UNESCO funding, and not just any sort of funding to do anything related to UNESCO's doctrine... such as archaeological excavations funded by a country?

Hm. its interesting what they're looking for with this question. I thought B would be too redundant, so I chose D. But we're not assuming the author agrees with any of these options. So because there's no evidence the author would agree with D, D is wrong.