Would be B be correct if said "about the entire adult population who smokes" ?

I got this question right and since the explanation in the video is confusing, maybe my thought process will help someone understand it.

The question stem is basically asking "what could be added to the health association statement that would lead to the critic having that response?"

I first eliminated A, B, and C because,,

A - the critic isn't arguing that the diet of those who became vegetarian has not improved, he doesn't even mention it.

C - the critic isn't arguing that number of people who have adopted that diet has decreased or increased, it is irrelevant.

D - the critic isn't arguing whether or not people regret making the transition to a vegetarian diet.

That leaves us with B and E

B - this statement would not lead the critic to having the response he did because this is simply was he is saying, he agrees with that statement so why would he respond to it and argue against it? The critic is arguing against the health association saying that the people that transitioned to a vegetarian diet had no problem with doing so (because they probably already liked vegetables). Answer choice B is restating his argument, therefore, he would not have made that statement against it IF the health association would've added that to their statement.

E - if the health association added this, it would have been a great reason for the critic to respond with (basically saying) "actually, many of them FAILED to make a complete transition"

Hope this helped!

I am writing this for my better understanding but maybe it will help someone:

The conclusion of the stimulus is that IF they use thermo. generators, THEN that would reduce their electricity bills and thus save money.

In other words, main conclusion is to save money (at least the way I see it).

I eliminated A, B, and D because

A talks about other ways we can utilize the heat being produced, but we don't care about that, that is not what we're talking about - therefore, irrelevant

B talks about current technology, which we also don't care about because we're only focusing on thermo generators - therefore, irrelevant

D we simply do not care about what the primary source of energy is - therefore irrelevant

That leaves us between C and E

E is a conditional statement. "Only if" indicates that whatever is after, is a necessary condition so the statement goes as follows

reduce electricity bill -> used some method of converting wasted heat into electricity

IF we want to reduce the electricity bill, THEN we need to use some method of converting wasted heat into electricity

Lets say the method is using the thermo generators...then the statement (in English) goes as follows:

IF we want to reduce the electricity bill, THEN we need to use thermo generators

HOWEVER, as I stated in the beginning, the conditional statement in the conclusion is

IF they use thermo. generators, THEN that would reduce their electricity bills and thus save money.

Thus, E confuses the sufficient for the necessary and is therefore, wrong.

Lastly, that leaves you with C, which even if you don't understand why that one is right you know why the others are wrong. However, C is the correct answer because if you negate it, it says "The amount steel-manufacturing plants would save on their electric bills by feeding heat into thermo generators would NOT be sufficient to cover the cost of purchasing and installing those generators". This negated statment weakens the conclusion that using the thermo generators would be more cost effective and would still not lead to them saving money

so it is correct :)

I have realized that the questions who begin with the same number are the same rule just different concepts. For example, 1.1-1.5 are all the same just a different example. I usually just do the X.1 for each rule unless I got the first one wrong then I use the others as extra practice.