I don't think the AC is "okay just because all the others are wrong" but rather because we have to notice that B is not attacking the premise in any way.

It is not saying you can't use isotope ratios to get body temperature, that would be attacking the premise. it is instead saying, we can not get accurate isotope ratios of a fossil and THAT is why we won't be able to use these ratios for the purpose of getting body temperature.

So when B says that the isotopes can't be predicted accurately due to the pass in time, it is just suggesting that the temperature we get from this prediction, won't be accurate. It is not suggesting that the premise is false or that even if we had the correct isotope ratios, we would not be able to predict the temp.

Not sure if my explanation is clear.

I agree with your line of reasoning, I think it is MSS for that reason. I think that is why in the answer choices, there is no AC suggesting another large carnivore later in time feeding on the dead dinosaur. Otherwise, there would have been 2 equally plausible answer choices, in my opinion.

This is how I see the difference between answer choice B vs. E:

B simply suggests we DON'T KNOW whether or not it will bloom because there is another factor(alkaline soil), which we DON'T KNOW if the lavender has. This matches the stimulus where we can not determine anything because we don't know if we have that other requirement(run down). This is not the case in answer choice E, although E does give us another required factor(chronically high blood pressure) , we DO KNOW that our case does not meet this requirement. So for E, we know that we cannot presume hypertension because this case does not qualify. This is in contrast to the stimulus and answer choice B which gives us another required factor, and we cannot presume anything because we DON'T KNOW if we have that factor, not because we know our case does not meet that requirement.

In my understanding, this is why C is wrong for Q25:

It seems like it is giving support by dating use of fire back to the ice ages and subsequently promoting the idea that fire use FOR COOKING has been around for a long time and is not "too recent". BUT by mentioning the ice ages, I think they are subtly implying that although fire use has been around so long, its purpose was for warmth rather than cooking and so this claim is actually hurting rather than supporting the author.

Please correct me if this is not a good approach for C being wrong

"However, if you look at the stimulus, it is actually concluding that the details of frightening experiences are remembered more than the details of nonfrightening ones, not that the experience itself is remembered more."

The stimulus is talking about how the OVERALL details of a frightening experience are remembered over the OVERALL details of a non-frightening experience. Answer B is talking about which of the SUBSET details out of the OVERALL details are the most likely to be remembered in any given experience/"situation".

To relate it to the stimulus, answer choice B is referring to WHICH of those details from the frightening or nonfrightening situation will be remembered, which is not what the argument is concerned with. The argument is not trying to decipher which SUBSET of the details in a nonfrightening or frightening situation will more likely be remembered, but rather whether the OVERALL details of nonfrightening experiences are more likely to be remembered or if the OVERALL details of frightening experiences are more likely to be remembered. Does this make more sense?

I get how B supports the idea of there being a bias in favor of photographers, however, I don't fully get why A is incorrect. To me, A supports the idea of bias by showcasing a possible motive for bias? Why does it matter that there are more photographers chosen, what would the purpose of bias be? To help photographers' chances of getting commissioned. Can someone help me realize why this is not a correct line of thinking? Is it just that B more strongly supports than A? I can see how B is a relatively straightforward answer, but I am trying to find a reason to fully justify A being wrong.

I think I may have resolved my confusion using this logic: "unless" suggests us to view the decrease in traffic as like a byproduct of profit increasing rather than an additional condition to be met in order for profit to increase? Therefore we can interpret the last sentence of the stimulus as: If profits increase, the traffic will be decreasing. Is this the correct way to think about this?

I'm confused on this question since shouldn't the chaining be such that (increase in population AND decrease in traffic) -> increase in profit. And therefore wouldn't B not be a true statement since we only know that there will be an increase in population but we don't know whether or not there is a decrease in traffic and thus we don't know whether or not profits will increase? I think I slightly understand how the "unless" is preventing my logic from being true. But could someone try to elaborate so it is more intuitive to understand?

#help (Added by Admin)