These questions confused me because I truly do not understand how the answer is not considered an assumption. We are assuming that there are more small studies, is this not the case? I picked C because the argument is taking to separate claims and from that draws its conclusion. I am not sure, these questions are annoying me.

I am so confused on why it is not E, or why E is not even possible. Is it because E refers to multiple instances rather than simply satisfying the condition. I am just not sure.

I think it was implied by the grammar lawgic being pointed in that direction but I am not fully sure, I was kind of confused as well.

for these questions you want to look for the answer that does not to explain the disparity. Your looking for something that could not be a possible hypothesis/conclusion given the information

its an alt hypothesis to why people are opposed to technological change in their workplace, even if it is at the sacrifice of their own comfort

For me, I looked at the first one and crossed it out. However, in comparison to other answers, it is most relevant to explain the the disparity between the residents. Most of the people who believe he is guilty, already disliked him as mayor. This explains why these people believe he is guilty. I was between this answer and E , however, I chose against E, because it explains that he is not actually guilty, but it does not explain the disparity between the residents. I hope this makes sense, Im kinda going through my thought process

there is a quick view option on the top of the video that allows you to view the question prior to.

I would say not because it says probably, that's why I ruled it out as a potential answer. The probably (for me) dilutes the strength of the claim.

I got the same answer but my thought process is different. I read the stim and found what the phenomena meant to explain then just went through the answers from that. I don't know if that is a good habit or can that lead to development of a bad habit?

I have a question, how come there is no intersection with coffeehouses and well designed when the first claim is saying that all coffeehouses are public places and the second claim saying that most public places that are well designed feature artwork. I can see why its wrong because of the most claim, but it does intersect, does it not?

happening to me too