LOL watching this in 2025... tariffs on Canadian tractors, eh?

This question is actually insane but also kind of beautiful? Like obviously I got it wrong but while I was listening to the explanation I was thinking about how this question perfectly encapsulates the unity of LR.

It's this ridiculously flawed argument, but the question stem asks for the necessary assumption, and the necessary assumption is just what must be true for the argument to make sense.

I think if I had destroyed the argument to begin with and really sat with why the premises don't support the conclusion, I would have had a better shot at the answer, than my thought process going into it which was too focused on trying to come up with a way for the conclusion (and not really thinking about the premises) about human activity to make sense.

c being the correct answer defies common sense....

What in the 18th century English was this question... I swear to God modern English always uses "obtain" as an indirect verb that takes an object-- seeing it without one made that whole sentence completely fail to compute.

I was also really torn between A and B and what ultimately swung me towards A was that I asked myself what is the question we are trying to answer? Based on the stimulus/question stem, I feel like the question we are trying to answer is "why does the professor think that Checker's was trying to hurt Marty's?"

A seems to answer that question for me by saying well if a company (like Checkers) does certain actions (refuses to accept competitor coupons even though it would have satisfied potential customers) then it must be doing so because it wants to hurt its competition.

B seems to already have the answer-- if we know that company just wants to hurt its competition it will do x, y, and z. But we don't know for sure that that's what Checkers wants-- that was just the Economist's theory.

I guess I am a little baffled by the chronology of it all-- if hiring more agents is necessary to reducing client loads, how can it be possible to reduce client loads BEFORE hiring new agents? Might just be a flaw in the way it's written and I do see how there are other reasons to choose this answer/how it makes the most sense among all the other choices-- which is why it doesn't have to be perfect, but I don't think it's like logically entirely sound either.

FOX NEWS lmao