@julieq03 it doesn't matter that much how you interpret "often." Even if wealth has only harmed a person one time ever, that would disqualify wealth from being a good thing, as good things "cause no harm at all."

It's like if it said Alex is not in the chess club. For no one in the chess club has ever golfed, and Alex has golfed at least one time. It doesn't matter if Alex has golfed once, often, or a hundred times. He is ruled out of the condition that is required of members of the Chess Club, and therefore cannot be a member of the chess club.

@LukeSLM9 because it doesn't rule out that other qualities may also enable an individual to inspire curiosity in others. B says that if you have those qualities you WILL be able to inspire curiosity. D says that ONLY if you have those qualities will you be able to do so, which the author does not state. D states these qualities as being both necessary AND sufficient, which are not mutually exclusive.

I just know this guy would cook me in trial

@Alondra_Sanchez yap city on this one

@quinnideally165 I also think it's not the worst mistake to make because at least my reasoning for why A was less supported than E was a general lack of precise information needed. Not a guarantee for all questions but there is reason for skepticism just in the lack of precision regarding the size of the families, even disregarding whether or not you make the assumption that there was a significant decrease in size from large to small.

@AidenFisher same lmao I'll take it

pat pissed me off ngl