See it all makes sense and I thought about C being not a great answer but I still picked it because B says instability will "increase" when no where in the stimulus are we talking about increase or decrease so it sounded even more wrong to me

My problem with D is that it's saying attitude can be changed, but no where in the stimulus does it say test subjects AFTER PARTICIPATION resent being given placebo. I interpreted the stimulus to mean they cant resent it because they accepted it and I found the flaw to clearly be that they're assuming 2 cannot occur at the same time by you can resent something and still accept it. To me E got exactly to the point except that it said "moral issue" otherwise would be perfect

This feels like I am getting lectured for leaving a comment saying Im still sure the wrong answer is right

this section is making me bang my head on the table in hopes that i get concussed enough to stop studying

no matter how many times i draw this out it seems to not follow conditional rules. someone please help!

I have the same as what he got from drawing it out.

If it sacrifices health -> do not acquire money (acquire money -> it doesnt sacrifice health)

and

no health (health sacrificed) -> happiness unobtainable

But how we're bridging the 2 together makes no sense to me. How can we negate the second premise and say, doesnt sacrifice health -> happiness obtainable? We would be saying that this is the way to obtain happiness when the stimulus isnt actually giving us that at all it's just saying how we can't obtain it. I don't understand why he would combine aquiring money sacrifices health all as one sufficient assump when it doesn't seem to be given as a fact but more like a conditional. someone please help

Understanding E broke my brain