Interested!

I don't know if I have the law hat on too much but I think the reasoning for this stimulus is really poor.

Excessive Development -> Damage Environment

Excessive Development -> hurts industry

Things we know (hurts industry->don't do it)

Thus they would never knowingly damage the seaside envirornment

No, they would just never do it through excessive development. They might find a system of four-toed mud-crabs that needs to be moved to accommodate their sewage system and might cause the endangerment of such a species but so long as it doesn't damage the industry by making it unappealing to tourists it would be ok in its actions.

I got confused by E. The fact the passage specifically included Frank's opinion gave the feeling that the author of the passage agreed with him. Am I wrong for making that connection?

#help (Added by Admin)

love hearing JY mention Bolivia

I got this one wrong on regular and BR. I chose answer choice B, but I disagree with the way JY set up the initial framework. One can teach in the French department and not necessarily teach a language course, they could teach French movies for instance. I interpreted the second statement as just fluff. Will fluff ever be a part of parallel the method of reasoning questions?

I got this wrong originally and right after BR. I was stuck on this problem originally and then realized the stim wasn't a good argument. Should I not assume that arguments in the stim are generally good arguments?

Why can we make assumptions with E but not B. We assume those people in the study are part of this weird group for AC E, why can't we assume they eat a lot of fiber? Or is it that you only have to assume one thing for AC E, but also have to assume salt is not the most important important factor.