I just use my hand to cover up the right half portion of the screen and click Answers and then click under question quick view to where it says PT S Q_. once the question is up, it should block the answer from view.

I find it helpful to just number the ideas as they come in the stimulus and map them out in the argument form.

here's how it would go for this question:

countries with an uneducated populus (idea 1) destined to be weak (idea 2): 1 -> 2

countries with an educated populus ( /1 ) are committed financially (idea 3): /1 -> 3

conclusion: 3 -> /2

then I do the same quickly for each answer choice until I can eliminate and answer choice and move on, or until I find the perfect match.

- Mapping out A quickly you see there is only an idea 1 and an idea 2. So, it can't be analogous

- Mapping out B: people incapable of empathy (1) are not good for public office (2): 1 -> 2

capacity of empathy ( /1 ) are good manipulators (3) : /1 -> 3

conclusion: 3 -> /2 . Exactly the same, so I picked B and moved on.

I got this question wrong but after rereading the stimulus carefully I realized what I did wrong. "CURRENTLY" a lot of heat goes to waste. That implies that CURRENTLY they're not using thermophotovoltaic generators to convert heat to electricity. therefore, the only way to SAVE money by implementing the generators is if the BENEFITS of installing the generator outweigh the COSTS. At first I assumed that the generator was already installed, which means it wouldn't matter HOW they were saving money (whether by purchase, install, maintenance, repairs, etc). But if the generators need to be put in, then the cost benefit analysis of purchasing and installing them is necessary for money to be SAVED.

At first i thought so too, but then I looked at the other answers and upon first glance none of them seemed to be relevant to connecting the perceived quality of education to greater application rates. Then I looked at A again and tried to negate it, and if the explanation did not apply in this case, then there are no premises left to support the conclusion and the argument has to fail.