While answer choice (a) is the obvious answer for Q22, I am not entirely convinced that (c) prevents premature heart disease. The passage only states that the alcohol in wine absorbs much slower than other distilled spirits. This doesn't mean that a lower rate of alcohol absorption prevents heart disease. Please let me know if I am missing something from the passage!

Why is this question stem not a principle-type question?

@hbochjk116 I guess I was being too nitpicky for this question?

@nchoi745 A muscle is different from an organ, and a brain is an organ not a muscle.

Thanks @akikookmt881 and @swamlepow1994844 !!

Yes, I don't understand this question either. JY says that only the last part of the 1st paragraph and the 2nd paragraph talks about platypus locating its prey. But by the second sentence of the passage we are already talking about this...

I understand why each of the wrong answer choices are incorrect, but not why (B) is the correct answer. Nowhere in the passage does it state protecting the lives of other animals or people. Are we assuming this because veterinarians probably want to save animals?

On the other hand, I had trouble confidently eliminating (C). Negating answer choice (C) would state: The number of airline crashes will not decrease if pilot training programs focus on increasing actual flying time. I understand why (D) is more correct but am having trouble confidently eliminating (C).

My mistake was that I translated "All too many" as an all-statement not a some-statement. Tricky wording!

Hey J.Y. why have translated "Only poetry cannot be translated well" as tw -> p? "cannot" introduces group 4, so I had translated as tw -> p

I'm not entirely following what parasite hosts like shrimp and oysters have to do with anything...

Would someone explain to me the difference between answer choice (a) and (e) is?

What is the difference between "calling into question an assumption" (A) and "denying the truth of a premise" (D)? Could someone provide examples?

Did anyone get to the bottom of this?

I feel as though (A) would be MSS answer but MBT answer choice. Because how do we know none of the corporate sponsors withdrew their support. It may be that some previous corporate sponsors withdrew support, but they received financial support from new sponsors.

Would you explain why C is wrong?

I chose E, but I feel as though "In most cases the disk will have been damaged years before chronic pain develops, and in fact one in five people over the age of 30 has a herniated or degenerated disk that shows no chronic symptoms" provides some support for (c).

I still don't see how answer choice D is correct.

The conditional in D as I translated looks like this:

real danger → government prevents

meaning that the government will prevent if there is real danger that the situation will arise, which the stimulus seems to be arguing against.

How does answer choice C strengthen the argument?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I feel as though (A) makes the assumption that the cost per vaccination is not ridiculously higher than the cost per medicine. Even if more people take vaccines what if the cost of administering vaccines is so ridiculously high that it counteracts the fact that more people take vaccines. If this is the case, wouldn't (E) that talks about what is rarely the case be a better answer choice? Any thoughts and input would be greatly appreciated!

"Only poetry cannot be translated well" - if not introduces group 4 translation, wouldn't the logic be translated to:

TW -> /p

? I'm not entirely sure why we're negating the sufficient condition here.