For AC (C), how can we assume that the financial support could have contributed to intellectual advances in unstable political systems and therefore may resolve the discrepancy between the fact that intellectual advances occur in both stable and unstable political systems?

If that assumption is justifiable, why can't we assume, for AC (A), that a mere difference in political systems may resolve the discrepancy between the fact that intellectual advances occur in both stable and unstable political systems?

#help

For AC (E), don't we have to assume that influencing means influencing from the start? What if influencing meant influencing some portion of an already existing structure so that even if Oromo people began constructing tombs with large pillars and paneled facades later than the Swahili civiliation did, the Swahili culture could have been TO SOME EXTENT, influenced by Oromo culture in the designs of the Swahili tombs, but not necessarily the advent of Swahili tombs?

If we can make that assumption, why can't we make the assumption for AC (D) that the third civilization that was responsible for creating the first tombs of the kind found in both the Oromo and Swahili cultures was actually a civilization that was in contact with the Swahili culture yet the historian did not know of such fact because the historian was not able to read an article about it?

I guess my question is, how can we make the assumption for AC (E) but not for AC (D)? What is the standard for making assumptions (because I believe both assumptions are equally indefensible and unreasonable).

#help

For AC (E), don’t we have to assume that people reduced consumption of cholesterol at home much more than the amount they eat at steak restaurants? What if they eat way more at restaurants than what they don’t eat at home to the point that there was no overall decline in cholesterol intake?

#help

For AC (E) to be correct, don't we have to assume that those who drink mostly soft water gets their hypertension treated? What if those people don't get their hypertension treated?

#help

For AC (B), since the editorialist concludes that it is SOMETIMES morally right to obstruct the police in their work, how do we know if the author fails to consider the possibility that other moral principles would be widely recognized as overriding any obligation to protect a family member from harm? I feel like as the author says SOMETIMES, we have no clue whether the author failed or not to consider the aforementioned possibility (if the author said that it is ALWAYS morally right, I feel like this would be the correct answer because with ALWAYS, there is no way the author considered such possibility).

#help

For AC (C), how do we know if the course the Mathematics professor is talking about covers which statistical methodologies are useful and how best to interpret data and results? Don't we have to assume that the course the Mathematics professor is talking about does not cover the methodologies and interpretation of data and results?

#help

For AC (C), if the site would be suitable for constructing a natural-gas-powered electrical station only if the existing system of natural-gas pipelines is expanded, and these pipelines are expanded to a place that is in the vicinity of the three bodies of water, and if people oppose construction of natural-gas-powered electrical generation near those bodies of water, then wouldn't the site not be suitable?

#help

For AC (A), don't we have to assume that the cobalt found in the 2009 analysis was cobalt blue or a pigment not used before 1804? What if the cobalt found in the 2009 analysis was cobalt red, for example, and that cobalt was used sometime after 1995? Then even if the 2009 analysis revealed that cobalt was located only in the topmost paint layer, which was possibly applied to conceal damage to original paint layers, such fact wouldn't resolve the discrepancy (the painting could have still been produced after 1804).

If it is okay to assume that the 2009 cobalt was cobalt blue or a pigment not used before 1804, why can't we assume for AC (B) that the sophisticated scientific equipment that the 2009 analysis used guaranteed that the 1955 analysis was incorrect and that the painting was actually produced before 1804?

#help

For AC (B) to be correct, don't we have to assume that people had the chance to listen/watch the advertisement? What if they didn't and they were in line to buy the unintended product because somebody asked to buy it while that person was shopping? How is that assumption warranted when for AC (E), the assumption that the day the person was buying the advertised item was not the day the person would occasionally buy the product and therefore the person was buying it due to advertisement?

#help

Doesn't Craig contradict the conclusion of Rifka's argument (we must stop and ask instead of not stop and ask) without offering any reason to reject any of Rifka's implicit premises since Craig does not tell us why we are lost? To me, rejecting Rifka's premise with a reason would be "since X, we are lost."

#help

Thank you for the comment. But if what matters is how effective the vaccines are, and if OPV is 100% effective against naturally occurring polio, yet causes 12 new cases of polio, whereas IPV is less effective against naturally occurring polio, causing at least a few cases (which could be less than the 12 new cases of polio OPV causes), wouldn't IPV still be a better choice? Why would having no naturally occurring polio cases be the standard for how effective vaccines are as opposed to the total number of polio cases?

#help

For AC (B)'s negation to wreck the argument, don't we have to assume that the the cloned flies that don't have ultraviolet vision does not have other required genes for the formation of ultraviolet vision? What if they did have the other required genes? If they did, yet they lack the ultraviolet vision, doesn't that strengthen the argument by saying that the lack of ultraviolet vision is due to gene damage?

#help

For AC (A), what if there was a decline in fiction in 99% of other stores? Wouldn't that still tell us that reading campaigns to encourage people to read more fiction have been largely unsuccessful? If we can make that assumption, can't we make the assumption that for AC (E), there may be a 100% increase in profits in selling novels by mail to overseas customers, so that reading campaigns to encourage people to read more fiction have been largely successful?

#help

For AC (D), what if the birds have different patterns of food consumption during different parts of the day and night, they might eat 1 plant and 99 insects during nights while they eat 99 insects and other animal food sources and 1 plant during the morning? Doesn't that mean that they still subsist primarily on insects and other animal food sources, so the belief that this bird species is widely thought to subsist primarily on vegetation is erroneous?

If we're allowed to assume that what they eat during the night is 100% plant, and that translates to birds primarily subsisting on vegetation, can't we make the assumption for AC (A) that the act of observation affected the birds so that they ate what they ate during the experiment, yet they would subsist primarily on vegetation without the observation?

#help

Isn't assuming advanced hunting weapons in AC (B) tantamount to assuming users to be creators in AC (E)?

#help

For AC(A) to be true, don't we have to assume that the new cases are going to be more than half of polio cases? If OPVs cause 12 cases of polio yet IPVs cause 8 cases of polio (naturally causing + vaccine causing), isn't it still better to have IPVs replace OPVs?

Isn't such assumption tantamount to assuming that OPVs are included in "most vaccines" in AC (E) (If OPVs are not included in "most vaccines," then it might not be time to have IPVs replace OPVs)?

#help

For (B) to be correct, I think we need to assume that international efforts created animal refuges and that those efforts somehow offset the increased rate of extinction. If not, the author could still argue that those efforts are wasted.

If those assumptions are reasonable, why can't we assume that since scientists are better able to preserve the habitats of endangered species now than ever before, and these efforts offset the increased rate of extinction, efforts are not wasted?

#help

How can we assume that the foods in AC (A) were the foods the female physicians ate? Isn't that tantamount to assuming that female physicians had preexisting heart conditions for AC (D)?

#help

I feel like for AC (C), we have to make the assumption that people who are in cities with increased tax are the ones who increased cigarette sales in areas surrounding the city. If we're allowed to make that assumption, why can't we make the assumption that for AC (D), people who are well informed about the effects of long-term tobacco use are the people who are in cities with increased tax, and they are significantly less likely to smoke than are people who are not informed, which is why there was a cigarette sales drop, not the stiff tax increase? This would introduce an alternative hypothesis.

#help

For AC (A), if in preceding elections the Land Party made no attempt to address the interests of economically distressed urban groups, and the party wasn't able to achieve national victory (inferred from the claim that 1935 was the year the party achieved its only national victory), then doesn't that tell us that it was addressing economy distressed rural groups that helped the success of the Land Party?

#help

With regards to AC (E), what if heating any liquid by conventional heat doesn't create small zones within that are much hotter than the overall temperature that the liquid will ultimately reach, then couldn't microwaves still be what destroys the enzyme?

#help

In order for (D) to be correct, don't we have to assume that only non-synthetic and synthetic compounds are carcinogenic? What if there are compounds that are more carcinogenic than synthetic compounds? Then even though people undergo significantly less exposure to carcinogens that are not synthetic than to those that are synthetic, it is still absurd to suppose that the rise in the cancer rate in recent decades is due to synthetic carcinogens.

#help

With regards to AC (C), if Deirdre shows that simply walking along the seashore is not elusive and can be achieved instantly, would the definition of happiness not change and therefore would the argument be valid?

#help

I was able to quickly eliminate AC (A) and (B) simply because they talk about taking melatonin tablets and INDUCEMENT OF SLEEP while we have to say something about taking melatonin tablets and TREATMENT OF INSOMNIA. My reasoning was that insomnia could be treated without inducement of sleep, so talking about studies that tackle the relationship between melatonin and sleep is irrelevant.

But on a second thought, wouldn't one need sleep to treat insomnia? If that's the case, studies tackling the relationship between melatonin and sleep are relevant.

Would my reasoning be wrong?

#help

For (B) to be correct, don't we have to assume that not administering would produce worse results? What if not administering is better than administering? Then sure we should discontinue the use of drugs.

Furthermore, I still think (E) could be correct. Some of those who use drugs may have 0 level of severity, and for those who usually have their functioning of the human body damaged, usage of drugs cause other effects that offset negative effects, creating again 0 level of severity? Then why should the usage of drugs be discontinued?

#help