@selenesteelman792 Thank you for this very helpful information! I will keep this in mind for any additional apps I send in and otherwise hope the admissions thinks the best of my already sent in apps. Thanks to the other responders as well for the insight!

I got hung up on and eventually chose AC E. Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but I thought that you could argue that: because eliminating the beverage and upping the dosage for the same medication worked, it eliminates the option that the issue was with the medication being incorrect and therefore confirms the doctor's first line of thought. However, now that I'm typing this out, I realize that we're trying to show how the first hypothesis is supported by the second set of recommendations. The first hypothesis is that the dosage was insufficient. So AC E is actually irrelevant, wow

Not sure if anyone else had this thought process, but I got this wrong because I was thinking about how at the time of the United Nation's founding, the charter's rationale was correct, because it applied the logic to the major powers that existed at that point in time. Obviously looking back, the rationale is incorrect, because there was no way to know if the major powers would remain the major powers in the future. So, I understand that the assumption in AC B has to be made to validate the permanent veto rule.

Wow thank you so much everyone! This was extremely insightful and motivating -- so many of us are going through/have made it to the other side of the same thing! Sounds like morning studying is pretty popular and I'll probably have to buckle down and do it. Weekends also seem like the way to go. I'm planning on sitting for the August test so time to put this advice to use.

Premises: the government claims the country's nuclear power plants are safe, so the public doesn't have to be afraid of accidents. Also, the government moved to limit the nuclear industry's liability for accidents. If the power plant has unlimited liability, that is a threat to its finances only if you can claim injury against it, and the gov admits that therefore injury has to happen from a nuclear plant. Conclusion: the public should be afraid of accidents at the nuclear plant.

A - the gov is saying something is unsafe, so we should assume it is unsafe - does not support conclusion because the gov never says the plant is unsafe in the premises. Not a relevant assumption

B - the public is founded in its fear of nuclear injuries because those that have control over the injuries will gain financially - false, because the nuclear plant will not gain financially from the injuries

C - if something is safe only because the financial security of its operators depends on it being safe, we shouldn't eliminate that dependence because it's not in the public's best interest - does not help support the conclusion that the public's fear is founded

D - the governments sometimes says things about a possible situation that are not necessarily supported, but it doesn't prevent that situation from happening unless there's an actual danger that that situation will happen - supports the conclusion that the public has reason to fear nuclear accidents, because if there were not an actual danger of nuclear accidents, the government wouldn't be trying to limit the nuclear industry's liability

E - does not help suppport the conclusion