interested!

deleted, replied to wrong q

Shows importance of picking up flaw before even heading to ACs. I didn't catch that leap in assumptions where the argument goes from saying "all farmers organic bad" to "we can't have a single new organic farmer". that's a seriously big gap that i missed, and hence was confused when i got to the ACs.

I am thinking of these questions in the sense that there is already evidence supporting a case, but new evidence has been introduced that completely changes the situation. it doesn't mean the previous evidence is false or incorrect!

I totally fell for the mistake outlined by JY.

I went in assuming that the flaw about ignoring the regulation difficulty is what the correct AC would pick up on. I caught the flaw about whether regulation compliance got harder, that would balance out the rankings and mean they might not go up.

The flaw that I missed was that the HYPOTHETICAL business used by the world bank may not be representative of the small and midsized businesses cited by the finance minister. Answer D subtly addresses this by asking if the finance ministers idea of a midsized business is smaller than the hypothetical business used in the report. If the answer was yes, that would mean the improvements to tax filing mean nothing in terms of predicting the future report.

Reading the ACs, I wasn't satisfied with any of them but went with C, even though it doesn't properly evaluate the argument at all. Need to really understand and be happy with an AC before moving on, because the dissatisfaction means I'm not really understanding the stimulus/missing a key flaw.

I struggled with this and didn't pick E because curry is likely to have turmeric, but it isn't guaranteed. what if the areas with highest curry consumption ate non- turmeric curries?

#help (Added by Admin)