Answer Choice E is also supported by Line 44: "In one example of such symbolism..."

I initially chose D because I was focused on how the author was utilizing the analogy of Naomi's past with the story of turning stone into bread. Line 44 helped me to see that this was an example the author was using the convey their point. The author wasn't drawing a connection between the concept, but rather emphasizing how Kogawa did.

Hope that helped! :)

An explanation for eliminating B:

"Takes for granted" means necessarily assumes. Does the author need to believe that technological benefits to a society cannot be commercially viable?

No, the author can believe technology beneficial to society is commercially viable with no harm to the argument. In the stimulus, the author says that people responsible for the advances strive to make commercially viable technology. Technology that is beneficial to a society may or may not be commercially viable!

Shoutout to Kevin's explanation! So encouraging as well ~

Something that may be helpful for understanding B.

Premise: Today's crops are less diverse.

Conclusion: Disease that cause minor harm to past crops would now be devastating to present crops.

My Prediction: What if today's crops are genetically modified and more resilient?

Reasoning: B) Attacks the relationship between the premise and conclusion, affirming that both are true but there is a gap the author overlooks. If crops are can quickly replaced through seed banks, then disease would not be devastating for presents crops, despite there being less crop diversity.

Hope this is helpful :)

Kevin's explanation of this was a lifesaver 🤩

Something that helped me eliminate AC B

In questions like these, I try to answer yes or no to see the impact it has on the argument.

~ Yes: OK so manufacturing new signs is considerably more expensive than old ones. The argument is saying installation is a waste of money, the manufacturing cost is not relevant.

~ No: OK the new signs are not considerably more expensive to manufacture than the old ones. This does nothing to weaken the argument which again, focuses on installation. The new signs could cost $1 and the old ones could cost $10, but the installation of the new ones could be $100, while the old one could be $30.

Hello, I live in downtown Phoenix and would also be interested!

Additionally, there is a comparative flaw with E. The system of reporting is "much better" than the two other countries, but that doesn't mean it is good. If the other countries had systems that reported with 10% accuracy, and the physician's country reported with 30% accuracy, it would not strengthen the relationship that fewer prescriptions are proof that we suffer from fewer ulcers. Both systems of reporting could still be poor, which does not strengthen the argument.