I hate this question because to me absenting oneself is still a two-party transaction because one is usually absent from something where other people are.

Yes, I think you're getting at a good point that answer choice B could strengthen the psychological hypothesis. However, there is another important reason that I think it is incorrect that I wish the video had talked about.

In the stimulus we are trying to resolve why more people being professionally treated for migraines rate higher on a scale of anxiety than people who are not being professionally treated for migraines.

People not being professionally treated for migraines is a set of at least two groups of people. First, people that do not experience migraines. Second, people that experience migraines but do not seek professional treatment.

If we were only trying to resolve why people being professionally treated for migraines rate higher on a scale of anxiety than people that do not experience migraines at all, then answer choice B would explain the discrepancy because they suffer the headaches when under emotional stress, which would explain why they report higher anxiety than people who may have emotional stress but not migraines.

However, since we also have to explain why people being professionally treated for migraines rate higher on a scale of anxiety than people who do have migraines but do not seek professional treatment, answer choice B is not correct because it doesn't resolve the conflict since the emotional stress applies to both groups and does nothing to explain why the ones who seek professional treatment are different than the ones who do not.

I hope that helps

I don't really understand how C doesn't strengthen. I understand how A does. But I interpret C as saying the wildlife has increased and so has the resources they subsist off of. #help

I chose A but changed to E in BR. I thought multiple officers may be eligible, but then the one who should receive the award is the one who satisfies the second condition. Further, I didn't catch the subtlety in E that the facts did not intersect.

Hi!

I think it is right to assume that others would not do the same as one person simply because that person would do something, however, AC A says "one should," if it had said "one would pay for any damage..." then the conclusion would not properly follow from the premises. AC A states the rule or principle that, if true, makes the conclusion valid. The fact that the Mendels believe something doesn't make the belief true or a fact. I hope that helps.

I chose C both in timed and in BR. I overlooked the modifier of "expert witness." Given that my incorrect reading was, "How jurors determine the credibility of scientific evidence" this would have evaluated the hypothesis and provided some insight into the surprising findings. However, A is correct because one possible outcome helps explain the surprising findings but the other begs us to find another hypothesis. B and D try to introduce confounding variables into the hypothesis, but in order to be stronger answer choices they would need to be comparative statements about whether the variables exert more influence than the variable in the hypothesis. E does little to evaluate the hypothesis.

I chose E and then chose C in Blind Review. I realize now that E requires less of an assumption because of the conditional nature of the statement. When A is met, it fosters the positive characteristics of B. AC C describes how the recruiters came to be recruiters, but to be as explanatory as E, it would have to give some indication of the positive effect this has on the exchange with the consumer.

I went with AC bAe cause I was looking for P -> O and the contrapositive seemed right but I realize now the meanings are different.

I think sufficient assumption question stems usually include something like, "If which one of the following is assumed" -- the answer choice is something that is not already present in the argument. In a conditional statement, "if" introduces the sufficient condition. But this stem is asking for an assumption that the argument is already making -- meaning that without it the argument would fall apart which indicates a necessary assumption.

I chose A over B but I realize now the assumptions I made that led to the incorrect choice.

Like some others, I thought A was an attractive choice because the increase in crop loss from insects could have been explained with smaller amounts of pesticide than in the past. I reconciled this by taking the first statement in the stimulus to mean the # of farmers using pesticides has increased tenfold.