@RichardAbramov This is tempting but incorrect. "There is no individual freedom without the rule of law" still allows for the rule of law without individual freedom.

@kennylang123 I was confused about this at first, until I thought about Sumo wrestling in Japan. It is a traditional sport, but has only existed for about 400 years. Because the stimulus is about prehistoric times there is potential for a tradition to have been created at some time in the past that was still more recent than the building of Tiwanaku.

@KyleGoetz Choice B does not say there is ANY negative consequence for the consumer. The entirety of the negative consequences would be for the employees. You could argue that it is likely that some of the employees are also consumers, but the premises and the answer choice say nothing about that. However, choice E says that there would be "much less" competition. And the premises only set up the analogy of privatization as depending on competition. So while it may not defeat the argument (because, yes, there could still be enough competition), it does weaken it the most out of the five choices.

@SMRegalado Reasonable assumptions that don't contradict the "truth" of the answer choice. If the prompt says "if true" then it doesn't matter if the choice says "Mars is made up of moonbeams," we can't assume that it is incorrect just because in the real world it IS incorrect.

@dlpaltiel770309 I think the lynchpin is that the rate of cancer is still rising. If the rate of cancer was going down at all, then you could say that the sunscreen was potentially having an effect. But if the most susceptible to skin cancer are using sunscreen more, and the rate of skin cancer is rising, then either 1. they mistakenly think they are susceptible, and in fact, the really susceptible ones are not using sunscreen; or 2. the sunscreen is not working very well.

@laurenstudies The argument that we want to weaken is that sunscreen is unlikely to reduce the risk of cancer. In other words, we want an answer that says that sunscreen could be reducing the risk of cancer. Choice E is, if anything, strengthening the argument, not weakening it, by saying "these people are more likely to get cancer and are using sunscreen but the rate of cancer is still rising." So the sunscreen is not reducing the rate of cancer amongst those prone to cancer. Choice B however is saying that the cancer rate that is rising is amongst older people who got burned as children (i.e. more than 25 years old) and therefore are not being influenced by sunscreen use in the last 25 years.

@TarikSoliman That may be the case in real life. However, answer choice A says "the less quickly they are able to perform them." So the answer is saying if they are pressured they perform less quickly. The prompt says "if true" so we have to base our argument on the choice being true, even if it doesn't fit with our own experiences.

@sgs B is incorrect because the line "Cable can also offer lower advertising rates than ANY broadcast network can, because it is subsidized by viewers through subscriber fees" has that "any" in there. If even one broadcast network was taking money from viewers directly then it wouldn't be guaranteed that cable could offer lower advertising rates then them based on this sentence. And if a broadcast network doesn't take any fees from viewers, it definitely can't rely on those fees.

@rickyrivas94 But the first premise actually doesn't say the patient can keep the information private. It says "can contain information that a patient wishes to keep private." So the patient has the desire to keep it private, but the following line then suggests that it contains enough information that it can be a recognizable image of the patient's face. This suggests that even if there is no label with the patient's name, an association can be made from the image of the face.

@JiggityJack5 Yes you can improve! Don't give up!