I initially picked C as well but was able to rule it on blind review. The way that I looked at it is who cares what the park could support a decade ago. We are talking about a recent property development which we can assume did not happen a decade ago. If the answer had said that the park could not have supported that many animals before the development then I do think that it would be strengthening for the reason you stated.

I think the better reason that a is wrong is because it says poetry which is too general. The stim talks about epic poetry not poetry in general.

That actually does make a lot of sense to me. Thank you!!

It's not very nice to say that this is obvious when the question is 4/5 difficulty

I'm still confused on this question. A says that it will cause less damage to the environment, but the conclusion is that it will help the environment recover, so denying that the claim doesn't ruin the argument. It could still cause equal harm but for some reason help the environment recover. I agree that that assumption is less reasonable than assuming that less damage means that it will help the environment recover but it is still an assumption. B is a better answer to this question in my opinion because we get a direct result of the environment recovering. I understand that the negation does not ruin the question because we can say that you need to spray a lot less for it to have an impact but we don't have to make any assumptions. If anyone has a better explanation for why A is right and B is wrong let me know. Thanks.

I don't think that it's fair to say that C doesn't do anything. It explicitly counteracts the reason that A weakens the stimulus. I agree that D is stronger but C still strengthens just less. Maybe I am missing something but the way that JY explains C being wrong doesn't make sense to me.

This one is rated harder but was easier for me than the last two. Weird

I've been pretty good at grammar parsing until this question. I read E as the people who did aerobic exercise did more exercise than the weight training people. Rather than them doing more aerobic training. Grammar really is king.

This question sucks

#help

But we aren't supposed to bring real world knowledge into a question? The question is supposed to give us everything we need to know. I don't like this question.

This is an interesting one because having knowledge hurt me here. I got it right but for me if someone went to the nurse it was because they were not feeling well. So saying at least some of the students went because they felt ill seemed redundant. It was still the answer that made the most sense but was a bit tricky.

#help

If we are saying that e and b are wrong because they don't take "except perhaps" into consideration then how is A right. A also says explicitly that it is not right, it does not have the caveat that it has to be considered.

I understand why D is not the right answer because it is not a disagreement but to say that it is not at all supported by Pricilla does not make sense to me. It is at least slightly supported. We can't say that Lutsiana disagrees with that which is what makes it wrong.

This lesson is saying that all before most is wrong. It has to be most before all.

I made the assumption that it being morally preferable was a compelling reason. I see why that is wrong now.

So I what I am confused about here is that I took this as a formal logic question and we are supposed to assume that what they are saying is true. So if the team loses then jen was not playing. So if we take that as formal logic then it would be true that if Jen plays the team wins. Looking back I see that A would still be wrong because that statement is true for formal logic. I guess I am just wondering how we were supposed to know not to use formal logic for this question and instead focus on past vs future.

So I picked the right answer but I do not understand why B is wrong and the video does not explain it well either. B says that the salaries have increased for the scientists who do this job more than inflation. This would mean that they would need more money which would explain the higher budget even when taking inflation into account.