I'm still somewhat confused why A is not the correct answer.
#help (added by Admin)
Can I also include blind review?
Can we go over why it is not A? I switched from A to E but I am trying to reason out why A is wrong rather than my reasoning right now which is that E is better than A. Is it because A doesn't have a conditional which results in the daughter not protecting the life. A seems to focus on protection of life but the MP of the stimulus is listening to the father's wishes which the stimulus in E highlights.
For me, I was deciding between options B and D. D is incorrect because of the word most. They are two rules to test NA (1) MBT or (2) Using negation and seeing if the argument falls apart. I tend to focus on the latter. For option D, let's negate it and see if the argument falls apart. Given a choice between similar Japense and North American models, al with the right-side steering well, most Japenese DO NOT select North American models. Does the argument fall a part? In this not really... here the problem is trying to reduce the problem of imbalance. Even is few or a small minority of Japenese purchsae the North American model that could reduce the imbalance - therefore, D is not a neccesary assumption.
So let's look at B and apply the negation test. If Japenese individuals are inclined to purchase the left side steering wheel cars, then they will not feel inclined to purchase non-left or right (aka North Ameican models). Here the argument falls a part thus B is a necessary assumption.
I was between A and E. For A, are we assuming that there are no other additional costs besides the animals and the acre of land?
Can someone explain to me why A is wrong?
#help (Added by Admin)