I thought that AC A was getting at the idea that the excerpt that we were supposed to be looking at was a subsidiary conclusion. Turns out that is not the case. This belief being false very clearly makes B the correct AC and that is a distinction that I should have made initially.

What AC A is actually saying is that it is a premise, that's one of the reasons that the AC is so wordy too. It doesn't say that it is used to just support a claim, Rather, it says that it is used to support a claim that is used to support the conclusion. If it is supporting a claim that is supporting the conclusion, then it is very clearly a premise.

Despite typically being very confident in main conclusion type questions, this one def stumped me.

The first thing that you ought to remind yourself of is that indicators do not always mean that the conclusion will follow. For instance, the use of "thus" in this stimulus doesn't mean that it is the conclusion of the argument. The conclusion must be supported by something. So even though that last sentence may begin with an indicator, it's very important to check to see if it is supported anywhere else. In this case, this sentence is not supported.

Reflecting on my mistake of picking AC A, I can absolutely see the fault in that answer. After all, like I said, the conclusion MUST be supported by something. AC A is elaborated on in the second sentence, but it's not necessarily given support. The situation that this would create could be mirrored in something like:

"the way in which one shoots a basketball has an influence on their ability to score. The reason for this is probably the different shooting arcs that are created via shooting in different manners."

Here, the idea of differentiation pertaining to the way in which one shoots is simply expanded upon in the second sentence, not exactly given support.

AC B on the other hand, illustrates perfectly what the conclusion is. This is because the idea of different hormones each independently raising blood glucose levels is prob a metabolic quirk of the brain is supported by the sentence that follows it. In fact, "To see this" is, in practice, providing direct evidence to substantiate the claims that precede it. We have an item, we have a why, and that is all we need to make a claim.

THE ITEM:

Each of many different human hormones can by itself raise the concentration of glucose in the blood. The reason for this is probably a metabolic quirk of the brain.

THE WHY:

consider that although most human cells can produce energy from fats and proteins, brain cells can use only glucose... if blood glucose levels fall too low, brain cells will rapidly starve, leading to unconsciousness and death.

I wrongly chose C initially. This is because of the term "as bright as a quasar" in the AC and "For anything that far away to appear from Earth the way quasars do". I figured that quasars were very unique in their brightness, but it seems as if the real way to look at it is that there can be varying levels of brightness given differing conditions.

That said, there could be other factors that influence the brightness of an object. Other factors that are not in association with burning brighter than 90 million suns. Especially considering the fact that something that is closer would probably not need to emit as much energy.

E was my second best answer choice before I submitted. However, it def makes sense why this is correct. It's kind of like turning on a very bright flash light from many light years away. The quasar, needing to travel 500 million years to be seen on Earth, while also only being able to survive for 100, goes to say that if it can be seen from earth, it would have already been dead for a minimum of 400 years.

D seems so obvious that it initially scared me away. However, I ended up seeing how poor the other choices were and circled back to D.

The distinction that needs to be made here is that the correct AC is pertaining to public funds supporting art whereas the stimulus only tells us that there shouldn't be any hesitancy associated with using public funds to support works of art. While extremely associated, they're not exactly the same.

The "Thus" being placed where it is makes C so attractive. I absolutely believed on my first attempt that because there was an indicator at the beginning of the final sentence, it would be the conclusion.

However, it's important to note two things. First being that an indicator is not always going to mean that the main conclusion will follow. Second being that an analysis of what is lending support to what will lead you to what you're looking for on this question.

Rearrange both the first and the last sentence and see which one is lending support to the other. The result of such a rearrangement showcases the correct idea that the last sentence is what is lending support to the first one.

The obligation to express gratitude cannot be fulfilled anonymously

Therefore

the important social function of positively reinforcing those behaviors that have beneficial consequences for others can be served only if the benefactor knows the source of the gratitude.

OTHER-WAY AROUND:

the important social function of positively reinforcing those behaviors that have beneficial consequences for others can be served only if the benefactor knows the source of the gratitude.

Therefore

The obligation to express gratitude cannot be fulfilled anonymously

The latter is clearly better in terms of making logical sense. This type of reversal also showcases which sentence is lending support to the other. This explanation should showcase why C is incorrect and why E is correct.

This one is very tough but E does make sense. Initially I was very confused as to why E was correct. That's because I did not create a link between the time at which one entity was able to colonize and the speed at which they colonize. After all, I thought that there were other factors at play that would make it unfair for the trees and therefore it'd be impossible to properly compare the two.

Like starting a race between two swimmers where one was already in the water and the other was still in the locker room. How could we say that the swimmer in the water is faster than the one in the locker room because he finished beforehand? The competition was unfair from the get-go!

However, that's not how this should be being thought of. Here, they're responding to the same event (land becoming available). That's to say that if one were to colonize an area before the other one, that would be indicative of speedier colonization time.

Bottom Line: there is an event (land becomes available), two entities attempt to colonize it, one gets there faster than the other. The one that got there faster is the faster colonizer because they literally colonized it faster.

5/5 LFG

I chose B on this one because I thought that since it was attacking the premise, then the argument overall would be cooked. However, while it does attack the premise, it does not attack the conclusion. Sure, there might be harm associated with the economic side of it, but that does not say ANYTHING about how it might benefit consumers. Next time it's imperative to distinguish if an answer choice is actually pertinent to the question or if it is just a red herring.