Me!

I am!

#help I got B on timed but E on BR. For AC B I ultimately decided against it because it just doesn't make sense. Congestion doesn't increase the total number of cars on the road, but merely increases their pollution time. So in order for AC B to strengthen I must assume that the congestion increase arising from multiple drivers must exceed the amount generated by normal running vehicles for driving to incur a group loss? I'm confused now.

Because it's totally irrelvant. I blitzed through and thought I had B in the bag, but it's entirely irrelvant because the conclusion doesn't care for the number of cigarettes smoked but the number of smokers. A smoker can reduce 100 packs per day and it wouldn't be relevant if he still smokes 1 at the end of the campaign.

#help I chose A but went for E on blind review. Can someone tell me why E is wrong?

The key to is read the supporting premises throughly. Once I read "would then" I realized it was never about toxins in the first place and eliminated 4/5 ACs in 30 seconds.

I narrowed it between C and D and chose C both because it introduced a new possibility for the conclusion. "Well, what IF there were other minerals that interfered?" While C didn't make sense from instinct "there aren't only three components in dust" it fit much more with I've been taught.

D however, directly attacks the conclusion instead of support which drove me away twice. I am so confused, where did I go wrong? #help

I immediately understood why AC E was correct choice. FFS it was in the first sentence. Don't ignore the context! !

I am amazed by how C so readily traps readers when it is factually wrong facepalm

#help I understand C is wrong but E still sort of confuses me because it seems also to be an assumption or logical conclusion you get from the conclusion rather than a paraphrase of the conclusion itself. Gut instinct tells me that E is correct I went with E on the first run but chose C on the BR when I actually slowed down to sketch.

I understand C is wrong but E still sort of confuses me because it seems also to be an assumption or logical conclusion you get from the conclusion rather than a paraphrase of the conclusion itself. Gut instinct tells me that E is correct I went with E on the first run but chose C on the BR when I actually slowed down to sketch.

I was deliberating on E but the "prevention" term really put me off, as there was no explicit correlation between exercise and the prevention of pain.

#help I can understand JY's explanation of D, but I hesistated on B since the stimulus stated France had no access to Cumberland graphite while the answer was about "any". If we go by B's logic then wouldn't it lead to the statement being "All solid graphite during the 1790s were mined in Cumberland?