So I think a good way to read this is by reading the conclusion first: It would be erroneous to deny that animals have rights on the grounds that only human beings are capable of obeying moral codes.

and then the premise/support to that: Wolves don't tolerate... The same is true of foxes and domesticated dogs..

I think that this flip is the most confusing part because the conclusion is written in a convoluted way. I originally chose D because of the way the conclusion was written(or rather the way I first read it). But when I read the conclusion first, I can see that the premise actually provides us with examples/counter examples that support the author's conclusion/reject other people's opinion.

I think that's where the added difficulty lies. The conclusion is written in a way where the other is stating both their conclusion regarding other peoples' opinions. So they're mixed in a way that can be difficult when you're tired at the end of the exam.

Gotta keep heads up!

Not sure if this would be too difficult, but would it be possible to create a system that allowed us to take a 5 section practice exam? Through adding another section from a different prep test?