Yeah, I chose E too. I think the main thing to focus on for this one is that the last sentence is the conclusion, and the conclusion itself notes that its premises (that monetary value is needed to compare costs and benefits, but that monetary value also cannot be assigned without using costs and benefits) get in each other's way.

I picked D too! Reviewing it, I think you can initially eliminate it because it says the blame is placed on the incumbents, not the parties. I agree with the previous person's comment in that the idea of the challenger is not really discussed in the stimulus, though I disagree with the is/ought. This question choice is about finding a principle (an "ought") to explain an action/event (an "is"). That being said, those distinctions are important to pay attention to, but they depend on the question type as well.

I understood why D could be the answer, but I was having trouble ruling out A since both answers deal with genetics. Auntie2020's response helped though, since although A does have to do with how genetics can factor in (and seems too strong), D goes directly against the premise by making genetics be the only determinant of schizophrenia. A could very well be true, because perhaps both twins did have the genetic predisposition, but only one got the damage that then enabled schizophrenia to emerge, and so genetics determines the initial susceptibility, but environmental factors determine whether or not the person develops it.

Thank you! Good luck everyone!

So I legit just spent a half hour with my husband helping me think through this (I chose E). The way he explained it was that these reading passages are webs: the main idea needs to be visible throughout the whole passage (explanation, support, examples, weakeners, etc).

He had me review where in the passage it talked about the "free exchange of ideas" (a main part of answer E) versus "the debate." At the end of the first paragraph it alludes to the "free exchange of ideas" as a part of one side of the debate (the side that argues against an enforced/more stringent copyright). However, the last paragraph is the only place it directly states "free exchange of ideas." Overall, the "free exchange of ideas" does not consistently matter.

On the other hand, "the debate" is referenced all throughout. The first paragraph describes the two sides. The second paragraph boils the debate down to one question (do links count as distribution?). The final paragraph answers the question, that A has distributed the material and therefore links should not count as distribution (B provided a map to find A's material, but A had the material in public first). "The debate" is the lead-in for discussing links as the battleground of possible copyright infringement. Meanwhile, the "free exchange of ideas" is a tangent of one side of the debate. Although I could point to the last two lines as support for E, they could be removed without affecting the argument.

There are two traps here. The first is context. The first paragraph and the ending of the third paragraph are context. I realized this after my husband stated that the last line of the passage is an implication, not the argument itself. The second trap relates to the idea of implications. My husband suggested to be judicious when applying logic reasoning lessons to reading comprehension passages. In logic reasoning, the conditional logic is generally meant to be taken as far as it can go, A→B, B→C, A→C. None of these parts have to be mentioned throughout, and implications can be equally valid. But the reading passage is longer, and needs to remain relevant to itself. Just because I can take it to a further implication does not mean that that implication matters for the argument at hand. Links not being copyright infringement supports the implication that "free exchange of ideas" is more important than protecting intellectual property, but one of those is relevant all throughout while the other is not.