Is E a counterexample though? It doesn't seem like "all was well" since Raoul didn't enjoy his ski trip any longer.

This question was tough for me since I interpreted the last sentence as "Zimbabwe believes that other countries are experiencing problems preventing elephant extinction because they are blaming the ivory trade, when they should be focusing on fixing their conservation policies".

That interpretation made me choose E, which seems to imply to me that Zimbabwe, which eliminated poaching, has had success preventing elephant extinction, and therefore they are right in suggesting that other countries should follow suit in changing their conservation policies to also focus on preventing poaching.

Is there something I'm missing that would prevent me from misinterpreting the conclusion like this?

How does B weaken the argument? Doesn't it provide support for why the planets orbiting our Sun ("Earth and other planets" in the passage) have circular rather than elliptical arguments, thereby helping to eliminate the possibility that elliptical orbits are caused by something else?

On questions like number 24, is it safe to assume that the order of analogous ideas in the answer choices will correspond to the order of ideas presented in the text (for example the first item in each answer choice always corresponds to the first idea mentioned, and the second always corresponds to the second?

I'm a bit confused -answer A seems to perform implication in the opposite direction desired. It seems to me like the connection we want is that intelligence implies complex, goal oriented behavior, not the other way around.

Are these essays supposed to include commentary? I thought I saw a commentary section earlier.

Struggling with why we eliminated B - the explanation seems to say that B is not the right answer because it talks about DETAILS of experiences, not the experience itself. However, if you look at the stimulus, it is actually concluding that the details of frightening experiences are remembered more than the details of nonfrightening ones, not that the experience itself is remembered more.

Doesn't that make B relevant? I also eliminated C because it doesn't imply in any way that pleasurable experiences are more memorable than frightening ones, just because they also include secretions of adrenaline - for example, maybe there is a barely noticeable secretion which could mean that the adrenaline has little to no effect at all.

Is there something I'm missing for how B could be eliminated, or how C is actually relevant?

I'm confused as to why D is necessary. Say for example all the early Hollywood films currently exist in other formats that also cannot be preserved before they deteriorate. Wouldn't that mean that D is false, but the argument can still be true?

Is it really possible to eliminate E based on only this passage? Doesn't the "balance and evenhandedness" or being a "neutral judge" imply willingness to accord respectful consideration to rival interpretations?

Would it be correct to give emphasis to when the question asks about what is necessary for the conclusion vs what is necessary for the argument?

It seems like the argument that "land travel was difficult" -> "hairless dogs were brought by boat between mexico and peru" needs the assumption in E. However, if we only paid attention to the conclusion and didn't pay attention to the statement about land travel being difficult, E would seem irrelevant.