This question really had me stumbling because I was so confident that A was correct. However, it was only afterwards that I realized that A totally doesn't answer the question on why the coloration helped them survive when it seems pretty unlikely.

I think for RRE questions it is so important to ask ourselves, "but does this answer the problem/question?"

C was very subtle but great for this question because who knows, what if predators see in black & white and that works in the prey's favor. We can't assume that predators see colors like us.

This one was a rough question. I was of the mindset that those "few people" in AC C also discovered it by mistake. However, I realize later that was an assumption that I had made and that although AC A doesn't sound right, it makes sense.

I don't believe AC A is a necessary assumption because it isn't really focused on the main argument and premise. It's kind of like context. In order for us to find the correct answer choice, it needs to be something that focuses on bridging dark themes and how they are threatening.

If you negate answer choice A it would read as "films that are whimsical and mischievous are threatening". Here, it's important to ask yourself what does this have to do with the conclusion (that films with dark themes are not considered to be appropriate)?

A: (It really doesn't have anything to do with the conclusion). This question is answered by AC C which if negated wrecks our argument.

Hope this kinda makes sense!

For this one I also chose AC C but it was very much because the other ACs didn't make sense:

A: Ok sure, but how? And what is meant by unusual weather patterns (can it be super cold as well for them to populate?)

B: Again, how? By mating behaviors do they mean that they mate more or less?

C: Yes, this makes sense. If the birds aren't at the feeders (where they can be attacked) and instead naturally foraging (where they are safer) then of course there will be an increase in their population.

D: Doesn't strengthen argument and works against us

E: Again, doesn't strengthen argument and works against us.

The best piece of advice I can give to you in this situation is to be patient with yourself. Something that I'm learning as well. There will be days where you think you're improving and others where you don't (honestly these are the worst days but they don't define you at all). Keep going and if you're finding yourself getting the same mark, don't get upset with yourself but instead ask, "what can I do in this situation?" - I find that this really helps me. Try to look at the areas you're struggling with and go from there.

tldr: Keep going, you got this - be patient with yourself!

Awesome ok let me try to get one started!!

Update: I've sent an email!! Please lmk, if you can see it!!

So I've messaged each of you! Let me know if you're wanting to make a study group! I can get that started!

Hi, I would also be interested in studying or forming a group!!

I would be interested, if you don't already have a study buddy!

When initially going through this question, I was rushing to choose an answer choice and fell for trap C. However, within the blind review I noticed that C was wrong because it attacks the premise and doesn't actually weaken our argument.

D is correct because it's introducing environmental pollution as being another potential factor that contributes to cancer.

In my hastiness, I initially chose A but then later realized the answer was D.

Here was my reasoning behind it:

A) If they're different species then we can't use this to conclude that garbage dumps harm wildlife (can't compare things that aren't the same)

D) Has absolutely nothing to do with Hyenas. So this was the correct answer.

I was fairly upset with this question because I consistently kept getting it wrong but after trying to understand my own logic behind it, I realize why I was choosing A each time.

The flaw here is part to whole.

A) talks about every scientist in that community and and how most of them are selfish (whole to part) - this is trapping us into choosing it but we need to pay attention to the direction it's going in.

B) is mentioning how a few scientists leads to an inference of the whole community being selfish (part to whole) - this is the correct answer.

How I thought of it was like this:

A) The cultivation of barley requires considerably less water than does the cultivation of wheat

Ok, so this could be true BUT what if the cultivation of barley requires more water than wheat? Note, in the premise they believe this decline is because of one of the following:

1. excessive irrigation (so there must be a heck of a lot of water)

2. lack of drainage (uh oh, it must be backed up with water)

3. consequent accumulation of salt.

This one is saying "less water" but the above premises are supporting something with more water. Therefore, this answer choice isn't supported because it doesn't make sense to have barley require less water but have all these conditions where there is so much water.

I hope this makes sense! (If not I'm sorry)

Initially when I read this question, I completely misunderstood it. That's why when I came across answer choice D, I didn't pick it. However,looking back at it, I realize that D is right because if these workers overestimated the amount of time they worked it would skew the amount of screen time they had, thereby weakening the answer choice.

Thank you! This is really helpful.

I think I genuinely hate these causation/correlation flaw descriptive weakening questions. Is there a way to tell the difference or even indicate that this is going to be a causation/correlation flaw ?

I find myself struggling when I read the stimulus since I have no idea how to figure out that it's going to be one of these questions.

#help

When I came across this question, I noticed that it was easier to view the first sentence as if it were a statistic. This then made it easier for me to go through the AC and eliminate the wrong ones.

A) Nope it's not the conclusion

B) It doesn't try to refute this part but instead tries to use it to come to the argument's conclusion (argument's conclusion: that it's the learned behaviors that cause the psychological problems)

C) Nope, it is is evidence but not used towards this argument

D) I initially chose this answer choice, but I realized later that it's actually skewing the argument to sound like it's right when it's not.

E) Yes, this is the correct answer - it is referring to the statistic within the argument.

Hi! I'm in British Columbia (Canada) and would also like to join. Unless it's too late lol

Yo, legit same. It's actually the worst feeling. Don't know how to balance life and study for this exam. RIP. We can do this though, just gotta keep pushing.