I'm also curious #admin #feedback #help

So for 13, am I supposed to use all the information leading up to the quoted phrase to determine the meaning? Or am I supposed to use the information from the entire passage, synthesizing the relevant information to determine the meaning?

#feedback #help #admin

I am having trouble understanding why B is incorrect.

I do not see how the argument allows for both the airbag to go off and to not go off. "The problem" is "airbags in automobiles occasionally causing injuries by accidentally inflating when no collision has occurred". And this problem is referenced in the conclusion stating that the new system "will probably make the problem with accidental air bag inflation even worse". How can we reason that the increased propensity to fail, when addressing "the problem", applies to things other than the matter at hand?

Also, how is it wrong to claim that any failure will cause the airbag to inflate when there is no collision? The argument jumps from failures straight to worsening the problem.

I see why A is correct I am just having a lot of trouble reasoning through the descriptive inaccuracies of B.

#feedback

I thought E might require more assumptions. For instance, "in common" could be ambiguous: both types of music attract the same audience or are associated with the same style of dancing. Wouldn't this require my assumption that the similarities arise from the melodies?

B I thought required less assumptions because "heavy influence" implies a strong similarity between the melodies?

I understand why B is correct. but I have trouble precluding the alternate interpretations of what they have in common

#feedback #help #admin I am having trouble understanding how AC C is wrong. Why can we not infer that mild rough will cause growth of pesticidal toxins as being sufficient reasoning for the insects not consuming the plant? This "natural growth" could then support the premises regarding the tough texture and unappealing nature? And the contrapositive is supported by the fact that abundantly watered plants do not have this growth of toxins.

can someone help me see where my line of reasoning is going wrong?

#feedback #help I found D to be attractive because I considered it from a cost-benefit analysis. If the advisors require a higher salary from the local government, then that would take away from the government-funded economic development initiative. Trading expensive advising that does not guarantee pay-offs for money that would otherwise be available for development = weakening?