Does AC C rely on an assumption that the number of oxygen molecules is the total number of oxygen molecules picked up by the hemoglobin? If the hemoglobin that picked up one oxygen molecule is picking up that one in addition to 3 oxygen molecules that it is already carrying, then would it not be as equally "effective" as the hemoglobin that has picked up 3 oxygen molecules if in addition to one that it was already carrying? Both hemoglobin molecules would be at their maximum capacity of 4 with their effectiveness at picking up oxygen molecules now equal (whatever that quantification means here).

I agree and struggled over the same point. I initially chose C but switched to B in BR because I was trying to fill the gaps of B. In this case, I guess AC B is the worse answer because of the introduction of "inconvenience". There is nothing from the stimulus that informs us of how to define what constitutes "inconvenience." They want us to assume that being stuck in a traffic jam is inconvenient. Also, the AC is comparing throwing raisins in the cafeteria (the reason why a consequence was given) with the consequence of an accident (the traffic jam). The comparison is drawn between the inconvenience of the action that causes the consequent with the consequent itself in the analogy. There appears to be more problems with this AC than AC C.

Interested!

I am taking in October, but would love to join you!