one way to tackle B is by granting it, and just assuming instead that opposing higher taxes is necessary for good leadership. This is a perfectly reasonable assumption that the answer leaves open for us to make.

If it's necessary, then B would actually strengthen the argument.

- GoodLeader → Oppose

The other candidates don't oppose; so...

- /Oppose → / GoodLeader

This would effectively say that every other candidate is not a good leader

The fact that every play the company has ever made has been dull, makes the assumption that their next one will also be dull, reasonable. This same line of reasoning is why (D) is also incorrect

I chose C. I interpreted it as; it's just as likely for the conclusion that the Swahili culture influenced the Oromo culture to be true, which is literally what E is saying upon second look. The wording on C tripped me up

The thing that B gets wrong is that the author never recommends changing copyright law at all, even if it does produce a benefit. The assertion that authors can require a password is NOT a change is copyright law, but rather a measure available for anyone to act on.

"if we have an interest in preserving any" is what this translates to in the stimulus

Regarding answer choice C. I did select it, but I was confused because it seems intuitive that one of the actors would have a copy of Hamlet. BUT, after re-reading the question, the abridgment the stimulus is talking about is found in the BOOK Hamlet. So we can assume the actor would have had a copy of THEIR script(or even the whole script), but not the actual printed BOOK the stimulus is talking about.

This is the only reason I can think of for why it's C

For this question and correct answer choice, isn't it assuming that the people injured in the accidents weren't already working. D says that the employment rate would need to increase, but if all the people injured went back to work, wouldn't the employment rate just stay the same. I don't see why the employment rate must increase, when it just staying the same would seem to suffice.

#help

No not at all, especially for question types that aren't (weaken, strengthen, rre). For those three types though, yes you can a little more attentive, but definitely don't rule them out just based of that. sometimes all it takes is just once instance of something occurring to disprove an "all/must" conclusion. Also, "most" answer choices are very very common

The way I approached this was...

Based on the conclusion, the argument is assuming direct positive causation between fat intake and cancer(whether up or down), a weakener would be to attack either one of those(up or down), which D does.

Attacking it from the other direction(down) could look something like this: countries with the lowest fat intake also have zero smoking, cleanest air, healthy citizens. This would attack that causation between fat intake and cancer

Am I correct in thinking this?

If anything C strengthens the argument. If audiences base their opinions on candidates on character, then they would find a candidate who appears trustworthy and fair minded more appealing and vote for them?

Isn't the last one (Two Mosts) wrong? it should be B←s→C

#help (Added by Admin)