This is so crazy, especially when the model shows people who picked the wrong answer (B) scored a 162 on average versus people who actually got it right, scoring a 161 average... LOL

A) what is the POSSIBLE effect?? There is not one. The 50% reduction in parking violations is is a definite effect for which the author is attempting to find the cause.

(C): this is right because it strengthens the causal relationship between reflectivity and temperatures. The argument concludes more snow and ice = lower temps. With this choice, we see that, when the cause is removed, so is the effect.

(D) if anything, this weakens the argument. even if sunlight is reflected back into space, it would still heat the atmosphere since it would still be passing through.

The paradox is resolved by (E) because it demonstrates that there is still standardization going on that leads to productivity. Employees has a little bit more leeway, but when they do something that is particularly innovative, the managers broadly apply (i.e. standardize) that innovation!

Ok, here's why (B) is actually right: lavender reduces stress--that's granted. However, the researcher is saying that people who smoke it regularly become ill less frequently because INTENSE stress can make people ill more frequently. So, if this is true, that means there must be some people who would be INTENSELY stressed if they did not smoke lavender regularly. Suppose we negate (B): "No one who smokes lavender regularly is ever under intense stress when they stop smoking it regularly." Now the researcher's argument falls apart because their premise (intense stress makes people ill more often) no longer supports the conclusion (smoking lavender reduces the frequency of illness).

I was in a study group with @lexxx74569, and they always made thoughtful contributions. I greatly benefitted from studying with them. Thankfully, I was able to get their help for free, but I'd have gladly paid for it! If you are considering hiring a tutor, do not hesitate to hire lexxx!!

A simplified way of viewing this: It is heavily implied that the program isn't accurate because it can't distinguish between homophones. From this, the author concludes that it won't be accurate UNTIL it can recognize grammatical/semantic word relations. This must mean that the ability to recognize these relations implies that the program will be able to distinguish between homophones as well. Otherwise, how could it be accurate?