The difficulty of this question also lies in the answer choices, I find all ACs to use extreme type wording 'any' and 'no'

I took a Kaplan course and they recommended reading the articles found in the Economist.

I was down to A or D.

I stuck with A but reading these responses I can somewhat understand why it's wrong: it's a prediction, and somewhat extreme as it could be avoided?

D: i see that it was the contrapositive but for some reason when I answering I thought sufficient/nec. confusion

#help can someone please explain to me why A is wrong, as I am not fully confident with my reasoning?

#help, I chose E and after watching the video , I understand why C makes sense. However, I guess then conclusion does make sense to me... maybe because I work in tech so I am using my knowledge of this industry. It;s hard not to use your outside information on questions like these. It In the video, J.Y did use some outside information by is claiming that the hospitals top priority could be something like electricity or patient health. I just don't see how confidentiality is any different?

I go this question correct while doing the inferences problem set. Got the question correct during the timed review and the blind review.

I did not use explicit formal logic to come to the answer choice, I used some formal logic but I was able to eliminate the other answers choices confidently.

Is it OK that I don't use Formal Logic on certain q's?? #help

To add to this thread, as I feel like this issue happens to me often. When I first take the PT, should I try to finish each section even though that means speeding or should I try to only answer the questions I’m confident about?

I find that I get answers wrong because I’m quickly reading and I DONT read the subtle wording changes. In the back of my mind I’m worried about the clock so I try to rush through a lot of the questions.

I 100% got this question right by process of elimination. However, I did NOT notice the subtle wording change for 'all fibers'

Although I got this question correct, I am glad I watched the review of this question as I have learned to be more mindful of subtle wording changes - I forget to do this a lot of the time.

WOW! I can't believe I got this question wrong.

I read the argument over and over and then the answer choices and NONE supported what I had understood so I picked E even though I know there was no basis for the claim that mineral content in the MS was lower now.

Anyway, not even 30 seconds into watching JY's explanation. It hit me - the S are formed when water drops over a cave floor. This implies that the water in the cave was not always completed filled.

Now Answer B is the only one that makes sense

A) We don't know about the water levels on the MS overall, it's possible that it was higher in the past but that's definitely not ever mentioned in the argument

B) Correct - if the water level was lower in the past, then the S could have been formed as they are formed when drops of water are fall on a cave floor over time

C) It's possible that the French divers knew about the tunnel before it existed but again, that's not ever mentioned. It simply states that the French divers were the first to find this water filled cave

D) Absolutely no mention of any other entrances. Id argue that it's a 180 because the argument clearly states the cave is ONLY accessible through an tunnel

E) No mention of mineral content in the MS over time.