I looked at this and thought every answer was correct

If E would've said "complex" instead of "sophisticated", would it be correct? Generally the main point is in the last paragraph, not first.

They did us dirty leaving the trap answer first

The passage says nothing can be refunded of the purchase price. But they don't say if they can be refunded halfway. Therefore (D) is wrong, gardening tools can be refunded, just not a full refund?

#help

This is such a flawed argument. It assumes just cause people believe most of the budget is going towards counseling, it is. It also assumes that most of the budget shouldn't go towards counseling.

I read terry, decided it was a necessary sufficient flaw, skipped pat, and then searched for this flaw. I got it over a minute under target time. 😁

I assumed when the author said that the 2nd theory is grounded in the 1st, that the 1st now has the same problems as the 2nd. So I assumed that after the conclusion the 1st theory didn't support overly harsh punishments anymore.

In the Avatar movie, even if we agree that it has that titanic scene, the argument is still bad. Just cause avater has that sad scene,maybe other movies have sadder ones and make them more touching than Avatar (with the made up titanic scene)

I have the same problem in the app

The passage take about most large nurseries probably (most likely) guarantee disease free plants. Doesnt most+most = some?

Why cant it be the area studies department isn't new, maybe it's old and got shut down?

C doesn't need to be true. We know working too much jeopardizes lives, it doesn't matter why. It can be cause "the more hours one works in a week, the less satisfactorily one performs one's work" but it doesn't need to be. There can be other reasons.

They key is the arguments jump from heart disease to healthy. It says, wine lowers heart disease --> drink it if you want to be healthy (which is healthy in general). wine lowers heart disease --> drink it if you want to lower hear disease, would be better.

The author did give new evidence, that the red bloom happened after the dolphins were dying. A should be wrong, he didn't accept the facts, he added new evidence.

Why can we assume the sample size is good enough but can't assume there's an equally likely chance to check defective and non defective products? How do we know (a) didn't happen but (d) did?

#help

When I see one flaw in the question, i sometimes look over other flaws

@arae thanks, I've never noticed the before.

14/15 😀. I really struggle with rc.

This is why you always read the question first, so you don't do more than you need to.

I read this wrong. I skipped over "which the critics acknowledge" and didn't realize there was support.

The stimulus says a (bad teaching ) causes b (student failures) . Answer d does not. D say a (lack of productivity) correlates with b (complaints). Nowhere does (d) explicitly say a causes b. So if they have different structures, how can they have the same flaw?