I eliminated C because the stimulus says test passage rate that was below average, not neccessarily teaching quality. It seems bold to make that assumption in a vulnerability question when it's not close to dispositive

AC E confused me because effective was not articulated - effective at what? Politics? We don't know. It could mean they're effective in their personal lives but not as politicians.

Regarding your question for AC (C), because they can have more than one predator.

Bad passage and answer set - for 26, the author never states/suggests that determining the accuracy of reconstruction of historic activity is impossible. They said it's difficult to confirm accuracy, but our understanding of it could be changed with better data. Difficult implies possible.

Need a break? Take it (seriously)! Anecdotally, I hit a major decline after my first 170 (170-164-162-159-170) but recovered within 2 weeks by taking 3-4 days completely off to go skiing. Also, as another commenter suggested: focus on nutrition and specifically hydration. Drink a lot of water. I've found it more important than getting 8 hours sleep to reach peak performance.

We rule out C because it's a claim with relevant logic and not B despite having no idea whether nanobes are or act similarly to single-cell organisms. I guess the takeaway for me is to be very suspicious of weakening ACs based on a claim vs. observed facts regardless of logical consistency.

The stim states that the government must ENSURE ownership majority for at least one year. Whether that majority stake exists is not sufficient, so since it cannot be determined it violates the requirement. This is a technically false wrong AC.

Yes, it's a technically wrong false AC. If you cannot determine majority ownership, you haven't ensured majority ownership by a party for at least one year. They're logically incompatible so you've violated a requirement. I would know because I used to work in AML.

Agreed; it's a terrible question because a huge assumption is required in this AC to say fire pits = lamps and therefore could've caused lamp distribution to skew to a period where fire pits were not more common. I feel silly even writing that, lol. It's almost as if this was written for a necessary assumption question and got "lost".