Are the test writers PSG fans lol

While I understand why answer choice B is a trap, I am not convinced A is a suitable correct answer. The reason I eliminated it because even granting that it's true that power plants pollute far away, saying that the pollution is outside city limits is not an analogous comparison to dumping it on Mars. There are so many real life example of how pollution travels, and it does not need to happen in that place to pollute that place, for example if you pollute on the outskirts of a city, you still share air between the city center and the city outskirts, you still share groundwater, etc etc. This is the exact logic that led to the great smog of London so I don't believe it weakens Umit's position at all to say we are polluting outside the city, and still somehow reducing urban pollution. Can anyone tell me why I'm wrong?

I got this wrong, and fell for trap answer choice D because in my head when the conclusion spoke about saving money I thought it was a referential phrase to saving money on the electricity bills.

I agree with you about needing a better explanation for A being wrong, I was hesitating between A or D, I didn't feel at all confident picking A, I couldn't think of a single reason to eliminate D as I correctly identified the textual support it had. In the end I still picked A because I thought it was better supported through two different sentences. First is in the first paragraph where it talks about retaining the amorphous structure despite being solid and the second in the second paragraph where they mention that even solid glass can flow slightly under the weight of gravity. While I know this has the caveat of taking millions of years, flowing is a characteristic behavior of liquid. So while I also understand why D is right, I need a more complete explanation for the incorrect reasoning behind A since I also believe it has sufficient support to be correct.

Interested, is there a chat we can join?

I chose A because in my head “approach” seemed like a really important word. Like they are all debating the duration of the bombardment 😅 this test really makes me think my brain doesn’t work right

I agree, just because something wasn't written down doesn't prove it didn't happen like you can't do anything with a lack of information. It doesn't weaken an argument.

#help while I was taking the drill I discarded E as an answer because how can you assume that the weight is a larger number than the count of clothing?

I hesitated between A and finally chose C. The reason I eliminated A was twofold 1) in the stem it speaks of the average size of the birds, so I felt that assuming there might be errors in a stem in an RRE questions (in contrast to a weakening question) was a poor strategy. This compounded with reason 2) If the small beaked birds were easier to catch and capture (aka assuming there is a fault in the experiment) wouldn't their results reflect consistently with the captive species as well? Just because a bird species is captive does not mean it is tame. So based on this I felt C was a better answer and could satisfactorily eliminate A

I answered C for this one. I lumped in the conclusion with the premise, and since selfishness was mentioned twice in the stim I picked C. I did struggling in picking C over A tho. The good news is I did flag it as a question I was unsure about, the bad news is, despite begin torn between A I did not catch my mistake in blind review jaja. The explanation helped me so much to see my error!