I thought this year was expected to be narrower because of delayed applicants last year. But hey I won't make complaints if things are relaxed!

As a Philosophy major, this, this is the answer. Translate any moral principles into scenarios that are easily understood. After reading it ask yourself: What action are they advocating in what situation? Remember that and don't try to kill yourself over the exact words of the argument. If they ask you to apply that principle to another scenario (which I've found is the case in most of the philosophy stimuli) just try and match the scenario you've thought of in your head to the answers.

@cnguyen2195719 said:

Abstract philosophical stimuli are hard! I recommend coming up with an example to make the abstract concept concrete.

For example:

The only justification for one to launder funds from the rich is to distribute such funds evenly to disadvantaged populations.

Concrete Example: Robin Hood.

It takes a while to get used to, but it helps me immensely when parsing out abstract concepts. Hope this helps!

I like how high school me could have totally figured this out in two seconds but 4 years of philosophy and I forget how numbers work... Thanks for reminding me.

I still feel like B leaves open a possibility to weaken/strengthen depending on when the high cortisol levels initiate which is something that is NOT clarified. Reading B it feels like it could be the case that B does what we assume makes it correct or it could be the case that the high cortisol response to stressors is happening after the trauma to ward off PTSD. I was looking for an answer that suggested the Trauma group had a higher innate level of cortisol regardless of their trauma but B seemed like it could support the conclusion to me.

I think the key is the phrasing. It doesn't say "a general assembly" it says "the general assembly" which implies there is only one general assembly, especially given both conditionals use the same phrasing.