Would C be considered blocking the alternative hypo?

I thought alternative explanation meant, a reason why price gouging is not efficient. Help?

What type of flaw would this be considered?

Would this flaw be considered; surveys and samplings to reach a general conclusion?

Why is the conclusion not: There is indeed harm in promoting a folk remedy that in fact has no effect. That's referential phrasing to the context and in this case important no?

So principle combined with MSS is PSA?

The conclusion in B and the conclusion in the stimulus don't match :(

I thought thwart meant to try and elicit :(

I still don't know why B is the correct answer. The negation of this is: Human beings can not control the aspects of their behavior that have an impact on climate change. But the premise is just IF human beings are responsible.

Would C be correct if it said something like, "Satisfaction with income is strongly correlated with with roughly same income of others in that neighborhood."

It does though. I see why the correct answer is right but Thelma concedes by saying, "This glut of middle aged workers", meaning this influx of workers. Help?

I diagrammed it all correctly except I didn't have the item /RSC. How can I correct this on future questions like this?

How is A a possible explanation, I still don't get it

I crossed out B for the word "most people". But if it didn't say that what if localized skin were not a characteristic symptom? Wouldn't the argument fall apart, hence be the NA?

Can someone explain to me why the first sentence is the conclusion and not after the "But"

What does "In general" normally indicate?

I did not see the comparative statement in the conclusion. I read it as: It will not effectively attract the sort of viewers likely to continue watching the program as the producers would of favored

What does economically sustainable have to do with the environment?

I thought the last sentence was the conclusion because of the word 'But'. Even though I did get the question right

I see B as strengthening the argument. Please tell me why I'm wrong. The stimulus says that prolonged exposure to sulfur fumes permanently damages one's sense of smell and then goes on to give an example.

B- If the subjects in the study were tested in the environments where they usually work, then of course the workers from the sulfur factories are less successful in identifying the scents. What's the deal?

I thought the conclusion was "literary criticism cannot be completely value-neutral" that sounds like a statement that needs support no? And especially how sometimes when there is a conclusion indicator it is sometimes a premise

I understand why C is the right answer. But I like A also. If prices in general in Australia rose more rapidly than the price of wool, couldn't that be a factor. However, I interpreted the word "prosperity" as not just money but happiness

What type of flaw would this question be characterized as? (in layman's terms)

The way I got the correct answer was by POE. The conclusion is key here. "If its a form of say X, then some were X." Makes sense. B,C,D,E were had all definitive conclusions and didn't have the abstract form I was looking for. A- " some students do raise their grades. So some students manage their time well." YES!

Would A also be wrong because it denies one of the premises?