I thought A was right because if both Reade and his opponents discuss the same issues, then unless something differentiates Reade that makes him more popular, then his opponents would also be as popular. But since Reade is more popular, this basically leads us to believe that campaign issues were not the differentiator but something else – something like the voters seeing Reade as "competent and trustworthy". Can someone explain why A and this reasoning are incorrect?

this should be a level 5 question

Are morally wrong and not morally right the same? Can they be treated the same in this scenario?

@AidenFisher from context you can infer that side effects refer to unwanted symptoms within an individual because of the drug

Anyone else annoyed that the explanation JY offers and the ones written under each answer choice are different? Now I don't know which is the correct explanation for C.

@Mariam_Mohamed no because as long as the sufficient condition is met, it doesn't matter what else is added (i.e. pschologically dangerous) since the sufficient condition is already met

I picked C because I thought it proves that it is indeed the emotion that causes the different sound and not some other factor. The stimulus never specifies this and so i thought this strengthened it. can anyone explain why im wrong?

@melisulusel212, it said they wanted to replace the objectivist view, so isn't this eradicating a particular point of view?

I was confused about the imperfect institutions that "they form" because I thought it should be "they are formed by". This doesn't affect the argument really, but I am just making sure I understand it correctly.

I picked C because it shows that the physicians could have seen the results as a result of the placebo effect and not actually the vitamins, which would weaken the conclusion.

@Kevin_Lin oh yes i see it now, thanks

@Kevin_Lin Can I also have access to your explanations? They don't show for me

Isnt B right since the corridos "deal with subject matter specific to the Border region"?

I am very confused. Can someone tell me if I am wrong? A talks about inferences based on recently collected data. However, the passage talks about inferences based on the study of the present. Are these two not different? The study of the present can be to study current patterns in nature and apply them to the past. However, recently collected data can be data recently collected about the past. In fact, isn't all we know about the past from recently collected data? These two are very different in my opinion, which is why I didn't choose A. No one else seems to talk about this problem.

@HannahLe they dont. its only the four mentioned above including flagged ones

It doesn't account for the possibility that it may be malicious. It discusses actions based on good intentions, but it should also address all actions. This is why I didn't choose E. Please let me know if this is wrong.

I still don't get why B is supported. Just because the people used a wider variety of plants than anyone else doesn't mean there are some plants no one else has eaten. Perhaps the people ate plants 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, while another group ate only 1, 2, and 3, and another group ate 4 and 5. If this is the case, then other people used all the plants; it's just that the people at the site used a larger variety of plants than anyone else. This question should be revoked because of this; it in no way means that no other people ate some of the plants at the time. Please let me know if I'm incorrect.