Lol thought waaaayy too hard about this one. Was really torn between B and E. Ultimately chose B, but did not feel certain. Shocked to see this was a level 1 question haha. I see now the extra assumption required for E.

@Okwuezenneoma1 This is a late reply, so just answering in case others have this same question.

It's because despite the increase during that year, we still know that overall during the period in question (1996-2004) there was a 10% drop. If anything, that STRENGTHEN'S the conclusion that since this administration started off with an increase they still managed to have an overall drop during the period, so maybe it was their policies that caused this.

Dangit. Fell for the trap answer because I failed to make the mental difference between libraries and bookstores. I didn't even notice the shift in language. Sigh. I knew right away it was B once I knew A was wrong. B literally says the phenomenon "left bookstores largely UNAFFECTED"--Meaning, profits were not increasing. Goes right along with the EXCEPT.

@Taylor345 That was basically how I read AC D, too, and exactly why I crossed it out without thinking too much about it. BUT, in hindsight, this answer choice actually makes a LOT of sense, and more than the other choices, IMHO.

Great explanation on this one. I chose B, although I wondered if the unacceptable styles or colors was already included in the "those returned by retailers" or not. E didn't make sense to me, but the explanation really helped!

POE FTW on this one.

I had to re-read the stimulus like 3x lol. And I was almost 2 minutes over time... But I did get the right answer. Woo!

@jennawiese It strengthens the conclusion by ruling out an alternative explanation--It's ruling out the possibility that the people who are actually just genetically predisposed to getting Parkinson's--Like, they're going to get the disease because it's genetic for them, not because of their diets--Actually just have a higher iron content in their diets than those that are not genetically predisposed.

@ElizabethAckerman Same same. Even after reading the explanation under each answer, D still makes more sense to me.

Lol I crossed out E and was left with a bunch of bad choices. Also crossed out B and D. Didn't like any of the answers and thought this must be level 5 logic. The "some years after" in AC E threw me off. I guess I thought the question was asking when they realized they were suffering poor nutrition, why didn't they change the crop at that point? The "some years after" seems to imply distance between their realization and this new knowledge, which made me think it had to be wrong. Sigh.

Don't overthink this one. The conclusion is that it is likely that CARBON DIOXIDE was significantly higher 3B years ago than now because the sun was less luminous but the oceans weren't frozen. To weaken, we just need to come up with something else that could have caused the same phenomenon. AC B says... Actually, maybe it WASN'T carbon dioxide, maybe it was METHANE instead. That's it. That maybe it was this other gas instead is the weakener we need.

@aakash2003ch457 This is why I ruled out E and chose D.

@Backspaced I had a similar thought process to yours and also had the gut instinct of C, but chose D. I chose D over C because C references a "sudden" decline, but the stimulus says the ocean sediments pointed towards "extended" droughts... 🤷🏼‍♀️

Wait. Is this Vancouver, WA or Vancouver BC? I'm from the Vancouver, WA area but live near Vancouver BC now.

POE is your friend for this question. 😵‍💫

I disagree that AC B does not affect the argument. I think it undermines the argument, not as much as C, but it doesn't seem to be neutral.

This is what B is saying:

Avg. Wage/Hr.:

Region 1: $100 Year 2, $95 Year 1

Region 2: $25 Year 2, $20 Year 1

Region 3: $15 Year 2, $10 Year 1

# of Employees:

Region 1: 2 Year 2, 500 Year 1

Region 2: 10 Year 2, 10 Year 1

Region 3: 498 Year 2, 0 Year 1

# of Emp. TOTALS:

2 + 10 + 498 = 510 Year 2,

500 + 10 + 0 = 510 Year 1

(Assume each employee worked 1 hour)

Region 1: $100 x 2 = $200 Year 2, $95 x 500 = $47,500 Year 1

Region 2: $25 x 10 = $250 Year 2, $20 x 10 = $200 Year 1

Region 3: $ 15 x 498 = $7,470 Year 2, $10 x 0 = $0 Year 1

Year 1 & Year 2 TOTALS:

$200 + $250 + 7470 = $7,920 Year 2,

$47,500 + $200 + $0 = $47,700 Year 1

Avg. Wage/Hr. TOTALS:

$7,920 / 510 = $15.53 Year 2,

$ 47,700 / 510 = $93.53 Year 1

The stimulus says that average hourly wages increased over the last year in every region. It also says that the average hourly wage decreased from the year before.

AC B says in order to save money, employers moved many jobs from regions with high hourly wages (Region 1 in the example above) to regions with relatively low hourly wages (Region 3 in the example above). We can see that the average hourly wage for Year 1 was $93.53, but in Year 2, it decreased to $15.53, because the number of employees in region 1 significantly decreased, but the number of employees in region 3 significantly increased.

I know the above is not technically perfect, but hopefully it helps someone as far as visualizing what B is trying to say goes. ☺️

@jessegrewal08585 I'm a CPA, too! If you're still on here I'd love to hear what direction you're planning to go with law! You're the first other CPA I've come across on here! ☺️

AC A: Pests have a natural aversion to eating glucose increases with each successive generation--Exactly what we're looking for! The researcher hypothesizes that the traps decrease in effectiveness because successive generations of pests develop resistance to the PESTICIDES in the traps. So, to undermine this hypothesis, we need to find another reason why the traps would be less effective that does not involve the hypothesis about pesticides. AC A does just that because it suggests that it is the GLUCOSE that pests develop a resistance to, not the pesticides.

AC B: This helps, not undermines, the hypothesis by saying that successive generations of pests are resistant to the pesticides--Exactly the hypothesis of the researchers.

AC C: Same as AC B, this helps, not undermines, the hypothesis by saying that pests exposed to these traps in houses that do NOT usually have the trap tend to die in greater numbers than pests in the houses that DO have the trap. It suggests that the pests in the houses that DO have the traps have grown resistant to something in the trap. AC C doesn't specify that it's the pesticide, but it doesn't rule it out. We don't have enough information.

AC D: This also helps, not undermines, the hypothesis by saying that even when the pesticide in the traps is increased, it still isn't any more effective at killing the pests. Well, yes. if the pests have become resistant to the pesticide as the hypothesis suggests, this makes sense.

AC E: This doesn't give us enough information to know if it helps or undermines the hypothesis. The stimulus does not discriminate between different kinds of glucose. This does nothing for the argument.

I could explain why answers A-D were wrong, but could not understand what E was saying lol. I get it now.

I chose the right answer, but I still think A, D, and E seem reasonable. I ruled out C since the argument clearly does not do this.

@ImanMozaffarian Great insight on AC D! Thank you!

I chose C, but E was almost tempting. The "admittedly unsupported" seemed to line up with the "based on false assumptions" line of the conclusion. 🤷🏼‍♀️

AC C and AC E are the only ones that incorporate the "human error" contribution element (AC D eliminates the element of human error) of the stimulus.

AC C disqualifies itself by having the technology "malfunction"--the stimulus explicitly says the technology is susceptible to human error "even when functioning correctly."

The phenomenon we want to explain is how come the birds do not breed and instead nest with their parents and siblings? The primary explanation given in the stimulus is: This behavior RESULTS from the scarcity of nesting territory.

In my own words: Lack of space for nesting is the reason the birds nest with their parents instead of breeding.

AC C is the ONLY AC that addresses a scarcity in nesting territory.

In addition to being the ONLY AC that addresses the scarcity of nesting territory, we also have a strong word in "MOST"--Meaning the MAJORITY of the terrain was scarce for nesting.