I'm shocked I got this right! I was in between B and D the entire time, but this is how I guided myself through the question. Okay, so what if the skeleton of the newly discovered dinosaur belongs to a T-rex? The next logical question would be: what age did the newly discovered dinosaur die at? Because even if the newly discovered bones belonged to a t-rex, asking at what age did it die helps evaluate the argument more because it can either strengthen OR weaken the conclusion.

I chose D because the strong language of "exacerbated" scared me off but I also understand that it is correct.

My professors frown upon using conjunction words in formal essays, but for the sake of saving space, should we use/not use conjunction words in our personal statement or any supplemental writings?

Same as JY Disciple!

I didn't choose AC A because I thought it was a trap. The premise says that peach trees cost less to purchase and plant. So, I thought it was inferring that peach trees are more expensive to purchase and plant relative to the peach tree. My thought process was that just because apricots sell at a higher price, doesn't mean they are more profitable than peaches because they are more expensive to purchase and plant so the apricots selling at a higher price would esentially balance the cost of the purchasing and planting the apricot trees.

I chose AC D because I thought if the narket has grown, then that gives the Johnsons a bigger market to tap into and thus making it more likely they should plant apricots. But looking back, we don't know by how much the market has grown and if it was even a big market in the first place. Thus, it does not do anything for the argument since we don't have a baseline. I made a wrong assumption on my part!