This was a hard question and I overthought it way too much. it was simply looking for the two things that aren't related/connected. I thought there was a chronological component-- which had the order reversed? Nope

Manufacturers wouldn't offer a warranty on a junk pan because they'd spend way too much $$ processing all the refunds (ASSUMING people would demand warranty refunds)..... so if a pan has a warranty, it must be good.

UGH!!!! I had A right the first time and switched it in BR. A seemed too easy...

Stimulus: After Persian Gulf War: (a) Less oil contamination than before, despite wartime fires/spills, ALSO (b) Low PAHs (marks wartime well fires) like in Baltic Sea

Resolution: AC D: despite wartime oil effects, peacetime oil production effects are worse.

I got this wrong because I can't comprehend spending 100 minutes prepping one dinner (20% of a work week, or 1 weeknight) let alone menus, courses, etc.

We are having macaroni and cheese, take it or leave it.

I agree with you. This question brings a lot of personal assumptions to the table, plus social assumptions from 22 years ago.

.

Womens' fulltime salaries = 80% of mens' fulltime salaries.

But ALL womens' average salary = 65% of mens' average salaries.

How?

AC D: More women work part time and make less. This explains the issue.

The language on this was confusing.

Migraines = physical not mental.

But migraine patients have worse anxiety.

What's the discrepancy? If migraines are physical, why do migraine patients have worse anxiety?

AC A: Relatives are irrelevant.

AC B: Migraines happen under stress? That makes it sound like the migraines aren't physical.

AC C: People with Worse Anxiety are more likely to be Migraine Patients? Perfect.

AC D: Why do we care about publicization of studies?

AC E: Most migraine patients stay until cured, regardless of cau

AC B: Yes, this is necessary. In other words, who says we can't replace iron ore with magical ore from asteroids? Or cool down lava from the earth's core and make cars out of that? And on and on and on. If we can keep finding non-renewable substitutes to avoid doing without or relying on renewables, then the argument falls apart.

AC B: Necessary. If the terraces on Dooney Co farms were built for reasons other than combating soil erosion, the argument falls apart.

I got this right through the process of elimination, but where are my fellow over-thinkers at?

How are we to infer that "failure to mention that the main hall of a palace has a ceiling that is one of the truly breathtaking masterpieces of Western art" EQUALS failure to discuss the aesthetic appeal of the palace?

Maybe he talked about the windows instead?

Maybe he focused on the aesthetic appeal of the spires?

This question is impossible to answer unless you interpret the last 3 lines of the stimulus as describing total failure to discuss the aesthetic appeal of the entire palace.

.

I didn't use Lawgic on this.

I just realized: the Press Agent didn't tell each of them everything. But maybe he still told each of them the exact same amount.

I picked E because I thought: Maybe the cities have the same density and size but one is a dirty, rundown city where everyone's sick, and one is a utopia metropolis of the same size and density but everyone's rich and healthy. IDK if this is valid though.

edit

Psychologist: "The best way to Y (UnderstandPeople) is through X (deep empathy/graspMotivations) "

Authory: "Oh really? If so, then you can't Y at all, because X is impossible. But obviously we can Y. So you're wrong."

They never said X was the only way to Y. Just that it was the best way to Y.

edit

AC D is attacking a premise-- that's a no no.

The author can say it's like Reading, if he so chooses.

We can't say that's wrong. We can only attack whether or not it supports the conclusion.

Maybe we do "read" paintings. That doesn't mean "reading" is non-temporal.

As E says-- just because we read it in no particular order, doesn't mean that we don't read it at all. (the implication being: reading takes time.)

OthersExposedToRiskBySomePeople -> FeesJustifiedForRiskCreators

AC A: wrong because we don't know which people are causing the problem.

AC B: right because we're penalizing the correct culprits.

AC C: wrong because we're not concerned with deterring people from creating risk; we're concerned with penalizing them for creating risk.

AC D: wrong for same reason as C.

AC E: irrelevant.

agreed

Copernicus and Ptolemy had same consistency of evidence.

Copernicus theory was simpler.

Copernicus theory was superior.

Why?

When all else is consistent.... Simpler -> Superior.

/Superior -> /Simpler

AKA

Inferior -> MoreComplex

I completely misread Answer Choice B.... gotta read slower.

edit

"Whereas states of affairs either obtain or fail-to-obtain, propositions are either true or false." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_affairs_(philosophy)#