I thought that B rules out an alternate explanation? So still strengthens. I'm not sure how it weakens.

If anything AC B is much closer to inferring author's attitude, because of the strong language use in P3 "That neither proposal was able to envision a system of education that was fully equal for women, and that neither was adopted into law even as such, bespeaks the immensity of the cultural and political obstacles to egalitarian education for women at the time.".

Although they do represent attempts towards egalitarian ideals, the author does not seem to empathize with this view.

@Malili From my understanding, let's say productivity was NOT equal between groups A and B before the study: Group A had a 60% productivity while B 50%. If (A) received nutritious breakfasts and productivity increased to 80%, while B remained at 50% because they did not, the fact that they were not equally productive before does not matter. Because productivity still increased in group A whereas in group B it did not. If we add the fact that few of group B actually consumed the breakfast then the argument becomes even stronger as it's a cause-effect argument; nutritious breakfast is the cause of increased productivity (effect)

I got the right answer, however I wasn't sure of whether I can treat statements with the word "unlikely" as conditionals. How is "majority unlikely to favor" the same as its negation "majority does not favor"? Because that's how we are treating both the premise and conclusion with the word "unlikely", and thus we get to answer A.

Explanations for Q23 could be a little more elaborate than that. "It's not A because author doesn't claim this", "not B because author doesn't suggest that". I mean it's obvious that it's not going to be what the wrong AC describes, but why?

I suppose (A) is wrong because it's not criticizing the results themselves but instead how they can be interpreted and thus misleading, because they hide (obscure) all other activity, except for cognitive action. So the results themselves are not incompatible, in fact, the results as they are the could be compatible because they do show "lit up" activity in different parts.

(E): evidence from scan is inconclusive, as the "lit up" parts are wrongly interpreted as supporting modular theory, but this still does not mean the opposite, that Uttal is correct, that modular theorists are wrong, and that the evidence conlcusively supports only Uttal or modular theorists.

@ptansani163 After a long time of trying to figure this out (I interpreted and made the same mistake as you), I think the author is taking a neutral stance for both perspectives. He does say that modular theorists might interpret the scans as supporting their hypothesis, but does not conclude that it does nor that it doesn't -- only mentions that the scans could be supporting their theory because they hide (obscure) all other activity. HOWEVER, inconclusive or misleading evidence on the scans about modular theorists does NOT suggest that the author supports the opposite (Uttal's perspective). That's a far reach of what the author supports.

I wish I recognized to at least skip this.

From previous questions regarding "unknown" or "unassessed" effects the AC has always been wrong that it relates it to "failure of knowing". So I am not understanding how something that has not been assessed is the same as a failure to comprehend it.

Previous questions have counted the "cannot determine" part as a violation of a rule. Because if you can't determine, how can you ensure? Also, the highest price "it CAN command" does not mean that if a gov't places restrictions by requirement, it's not selling for the highest price that it CAN command. It seems like there are a ton of inconsistencies in the reasoning for why ACs are right or wrong, there is no base to determine.

I really thought the two last sentences explaining what the collision will result in does NOT support WHY the risk of a collision is likely to increase. It only explains what would happen AFTER a collision occured.

The explanation for C says "The passage doesn’t say there was a “sudden” appearance of sophisticated crafts. " but Paragraph one explicitly states "Because of its early date, this seemingly sudden appearance of such abstract writing has long puzzled researchers." Is the difference that it's saying seemingly before that?