I correctly identified the conclusion as the perception that direct mail advertisements is bad for the environment is misguided. I selected answer choice D because it describes targeted direct-mail advertisements. If the advertisements are targeted, would that not offer the "most" strengthening choice because the advertisements aren't generated and sent to people who the company does not have a good reason to believe will be interested in the product? The advertisements are targeted to people who "would otherwise require the use of a car, thus adding pollutants to the air" as opposed to arguably wasteful distribution to the average person.

I struggle with some of these more difficult question types because some seem to require you to extrapolate some assumptions and create a narrative to aid in a connection between the answer choice and the stimulus. It's hard to distinguish which narrative seems the best.

I am not understanding how "I am careful to avoid spraying on my neighbor's land" in the stimulus "does not address the neighbor's claim that pesticides used by the farmer are spreading onto her land" in (C).

I originally selected C, but changed my mind because the neighbor's claim was specifically citing spreading via runoff water so I tossed it as descriptively inaccurate because I classified land separately.

But I would appreciate it if someone can explain to me how the statement "I am am careful not to spray on my neighbor's land" does not address a claim that "pesticides used by the farmer are spreading onto her land".

Gotta give myself props for this one. I'm not great with RC, but nailed this in 0:44. There is hope!

What tripped me up is the phrasing "almost all". Why would "almost half", "52 percent" or conversely "48%" be synonymous with almost all?!?!?! I am operating under the principle "if the answer choice a little wrong, then it's all wrong". I do not see how the phrasing "almost all" in option A doesn't eliminate it for extreme language. "Almost all" was not in the room with us at all!