@mosheelish94 C is not correct because having "one of the highest offers" is not the same as having the absolute highest.

@Stas1973 Yes. However, the World Oil Company made "one of the highest" offers, which is not the same as being the absolute highest.

@JohnLanza Causing a price reduction by restricting foreign buyers means that they necessarily did not get the highest value on the open market.

I guess the test writers have never been at a stoplight before. Drivers frequently inch closer to a stoplight, meaning that their speed is often not zero.

It's not immediately clear to me that "In addition" implies that rule 2 should contain the business operation clause in the sufficient. It makes just as much sense to me that "In addition" just implies an entirely separate rule about RGBEL.

@Edbnapa "Electric trucks" is a subset of all trucks. In other words, if it's an electric truck, it's also a truck. We can make a valid inference due to this fact.

Can we say the same of commercial pilots and people who fly? No. Military pilots, for example, can fly in fighter jets but not commercial aircraft.

@Edbnapa You are right in saying that we can draw certain conclusions based on these claims. For example, because we know that all surgeons enjoy the sight of blood we can conclude that some surgeons do.

The point of the exercise, though, is that these two claims together do combine to produce a new conclusion. The case does not say anything conclusive about vampire surgeons.

@ryokace One way to rephrase "some" claims in in terms of things existing. If I say some cats are orange, that is equivalent to saying there exists and orange cat. Since this question is talking about future scenarios (or a world in which something happens), they've phrased the answer in terms of those worlds existing.

@EvaCarrascoLopez.PhD

It looks like they're using C to mean cancelled rather than class. If C did mean classes were in session, your translation would be right