I unfortunately chose B over C in my answer. Here is why C is correct and B is wrong:

C - Why this is right: At its core, this is a causal stimulus. Deficiency of organic factors -> symptoms of mental illness. Symptoms vary from country to country, thus variation in organic factors -> variation in symptoms. Well, what if there is another cause that can account for the variation? C. Gets at this perfectly.

B - Why this is wrong: A few things. While this is descriptively accurate, this is not the flaw. In fact, if this fact was taken into account, it would strengthen the argument, providing more basis for the uneven distribution of symptoms. The gap here in reasoning is between symptoms and their incidence around the globe. Why should we believe that organic factors are the only cause of this? What if there is another reason why mental illnesses do not seem distributed evenly?

I am fundamentally misunderstanding this conclusion. I simply do not get what it means when it says that "the price difference cannot be accounted for by the greater cost of providing decaf." Is the conclusion that we cannot attribute why decaf costs more to the cost of providing? And what does "the cost of providing" even mean? Does that just mean the input costs at the coffee shop?

#help

Being only 23 and not knowing much about the legal profession, I don't think going to a T14 is a necessary condition for success (sry to be THAT guy who weaves LSAT terminology into a response). Malcom Gladwell has an awesome podcast on the LSAT and the legal profession. His argument focuses on the classic story of the tortoise and the hare. You'd imagine a good lawyer would be more like a tortoise: diligent, thoughtful, and wise. Yet top law schools and the LSAT award people who are hares; those who can answer questions / read passages under intense time constraints.

Gladwell tracks a few examples of lawyers who did not go to T14 law schools and are still pillars in the legal profession. His argument, which I believe, is that these lawyers became successful precisely because they were tortoises. Long story short, your success is not guaranteed because of your law school but rather because of some personal characteristics (i.e. determination, hardwork). Hope this helps :)

This is unbelievably frustrating!!! Maybe I just do not understand phrases, but I have heard the phrase "it reasons that" to be synonymous with "it is rational to think". Evidently, this is very wrong.

#help (Added by Admin)

What @ said is great. Here's a supporting example:

Michael argues that we should have gun control. He bases his conclusion on a comparison between the U.S and Australia. The U.S. has many mass shootings and few gun control laws. Meanwhile, Australia enacted gun control and subsequently saw a reduction in mass shootings. However, everyone knows Australia and the U.S. are substantively different. Therefore, we should not have gun control.

This has the same flaw. Just because someone has not adequately proven an argument does not make that position false. Think about it - there can (and tbh are) other more compelling reasons to have gun control outside the premise Michael provides. The only reasonable conclusion the above author can draw from the premises is something like "Thus, Michael's argument rests on a faulty assumption" or "Michael does not present a persuasive argument."

Sees a flaw question after Q15

Me: fuck this I'm out