I second this issue. Also, I don't have the option to X out answer choices nor the ability to highlight

Idk why AC B is wrong. If we were to assume that one spends money to help their relatives, their spending would be undiminished (spending to help family) and there would be no increase in savings as well. On the other hand, if we were to assume one was not paying off their debts at an accelerated rate, their spending would be diminished (you are not spending it in on the debt) and there would be more reason, than AC A at least, to believe that your savings would increase #help

Originally I picked C bc it "smelled" right but upon blind review I picked B.

The argument is assuming that the psychologist is correct: You can understand another person through deep empathy as it would allow for you to get a direct grasp of their motivation, but then it goes on to deny this assumption saying that "no, it wouldn't allow you to get a direct grasp, which is what I viewed as the contradiction.

What am I missing? #help

I don't see why AC A doesn't show a logical relationship.

Reshuffling of Cabinet --> Preceded by meetings

/Preceded by meetings

Thus /Reshuffling of Cabinet

What am I missing here? #help

Can anyone explain why E is a better choice than A? both seemingly wreck the argument when negated, except A actually has the word "historical awareness" rather than just "history", which I presumed made it the better answer. #help