Very tough question. My big mistake was to gloss over the second part of the conclusion, "and can even pass their concerns on to other crows." Became huge time sink looking for answer (which didn't exist) that satisfied only the first part of the conclusion.

Wow I totally misread this question.

Im proud I chose D with confidence, even though it didn't describe the flaw.

Can't thank you enough. What a ride it has been. 70 days later and here I am.

I misread AC D). For that answer to be correct, it should have read "Some drivers whose blood alcohol content is between 0.4 and 0.8 pose a (substantial) danger to the public."

Ugh! Forgot statement that he works 5 days!

I did the exact same thing!! Had no idea what to pick simply because the stem confused me so much.

Had no idea what AC C) meant, so I just chose D). :/

You can answer this question without an embedded conditional.

Stimulus in my own words: People who receive unsolicited advice from a person who would be self-advantaged by that advice should regard that advice with skepticism unless their interests coincide with the advice-giver. (I know this is a bit confusing!)

Group 3, negate sufficient: /Regard advice with skepticism → Interests substantially coincide

Contrapositive: /Interests substantially coincide → Regard the advice with skepticism

AC B) fits perfectly with the contrapositive. Ramon and the salesperson do not have coinciding interests, therefore he should regard their advice with skepticism.

Chose E. Didn't read B close enough. Ugh!

I did the exact same thing.

I disagree with JY here. I think the administrator is reinterpreting "new diagnostic technologies." Suffering stays consistent in both. Yet the administrator reinterprets new diagnostic technologies to be something that will minimize patient suffering, where the auditor did not.

Missed this too. Overlooked wording in B.

Had the correct answer then changed it in blind review. Go with your gut if the concept doesn't make immediate sense, your intuition is probably correct!

Got this question wrong because I forgot most CANNOT be reversibly read!

This is the first question so far that I simply do not understand.

This hurts my head.

I did this question a bit differently.

Premise: Anybody who manages to convince some people of his or her qualifications is an expert. (MCQ → E)

Conclusion: Almost anyone can be an expert. (P ‑m→ E)

MCQ → E

------------------------

P ‑m→ E

Answer choice A: P ‑m→ MCQ

That's perfect.

P ‑m→ MCQ → E

P ‑m→ E

Can someone explain why E is wrong? What if the population had been declining continuously for the past 100 years, even before the ozone depletion occurred? Who cares if it's been declining continuously over the past 50 years? What if for some of those years, it was the ozone, and other years it was, I don't know, a fatal virus?

#help (Added by Admin)

This is a GREAT practice question for rejecting the four wrong answers and moving on. AC A, C, D and E have nothing to do with the argument. Even though it's tough to understand B, you have to choose it and move on.

I disagree with this explanation. On rough waters, a cabin with no windows can still be affected (items on the all could move, for example). In this way, both the inner ears and eyes would tell you that you are moving.

This question hurts my head. I still find it hard to comprehend.

C is a total trap answer. I read over D too quickly, and missed the part about diatom death.

Had D but then picked C in blind review. Ugh!

This was such a hard question. Read too fast, definitely found it hard to pin down the difference between A and D on a quick read.