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)

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

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

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

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

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