Can someone help me understand why E is wrong? I like C and E as answer choice, but I don't understand why E is wrong. I understand we are dealing with an embedded conditional in the conclusion that states that we are in a world with no Iatrogenic dieases, but answer E is essentially saying in my eyes "as long as there is non-Iatrogenic dieseases, there is bound to be Iatrogenic dieases, therefore to get rid of Iatrogenic diesease, you would have to get rid of all diesease", which is not something we are dealing with. I understand that in a round-about way, answer E is essentially just denying hypothetical in the conclusion, and now that I see that C is right I concede it's the better answer, but still don't see how E is nessecarily wrong.

Any help is appreciated. Thanks in advance.

Dude this question is infuriating. Feels like this was the first one I was actually confident on for NA questions, especially since is felt like negating AC B made the argument fall apart.

AC C makes sense, but what does it have to do with electrical bills? How are we just supposed to know they want the answer to be about "overall cost," including the purchase of the generators?

I still don't understand the difference between NA and SA so far. It feels like all of the questions so far have been ones where the right answer could be both. I would have went with B, but I assumed that it seemed like "too good" of an answer choice for the question, making it a SA. I thought one of the main things we we're told was that incorrect AC's for NA questions will bait us into making SA's (especially since this comes right after the SA curriculum part), so I was looking for something that it seemed that the stimulus overlooked as a key part of the conclusion and went with AC A. I understand how A could be wrong since people browsing in general is the superset, but I'm still confused on the difference between SA and NA questions so far, hopefully it will make more sense down the line.

So is it ok that in this instance the answer doesn't really address the conclusion that the author makes? The author is talking about "discouraging from entering the profession", and it seems like THAT is what we are trying to target with the answer. But the correct answer in this case (E), talks about discouraging them from CONTINUING to teach AFTER they are already in the profession. In this case, they weren't discouraged from entering the profession, but rather later on. I still feel like B attacks this more cleanly by saying something like "it's not the case that people with this personality type are discouraged, but rather that's the personality % breakdown of people interested in the field to begin with". Again, I concede that E is a good answer choice, just still confusing

I'm still not fully understanding how the wording of E weakens the argument. As someone else pointed out, I feel like it's a very reasonable assumption to say that even if the diseases were the EXACT SAME from back then to modern day, the epidemics would be much shorter now due to sanitation, medicine, and all that good stuff. Maybe I'm misinterpreting how viruses work, but again, I feel that's a highly reasonable assumption of why they COULD be the same, just under different conditions, which would mean that it doesn't weaken the argument. I sort of understand how B could also be consistent with and not necessarily weaken the argument, but don't understand why E weakens it.