Reasoning on why B is incorrect is somewhat questionable because why are we putting = between wouldn't be wrong and would be right? Because wouldn't be wrong also could mean neutral. A gray area exists.

A huge problem with C is that it requires either (i) making an assumption or (ii) knowledge about diseases. I have no background in biology or in any related field about diseases. But what my common sense tells me is that for this argument to work (weaken), I have to assume that Ebola spreads only from an animal to human, not from human to human. Even if I were to take for granted that yes, a rat is a host animal, does it preclude that it can, first, spread from a rat to a human elsewhere, and then that human spreads it further Athenians?

The problem, indeed, could be fixed by knowledge in biology. Which is unreasonable to expect from a common person. There are variety of diseases. Which makes you make the assumption.

I did choose B though.

I see why C is correct given the explanation of the stimulus.

But I don't understand how in the world we're to interpret the stimulus in that way. Stimulus directly says that attrition accompanies migration. It doesn't mention or refer in any way to feeding places. And reasonable inference of that would be something like that birds die during migration for whatever reason.

Please help. I don't get how we're to link attrition accompanying migration with feeding places and being vulnerable to predators.

I concur with @ and would add that you shouldn't just see why the right answer is right, but also analyse why the wrong answers are wrong, especially the ones you were attracted to. Also, 7sage allows you to see which type of question you're worst at. Take advantage of it and at least run/rerun that type of question in the curriculum.

If you actually think of it, this question isn't so hard as opposed to questions with super dense language and unfamiliar terms. At least in my case, it was that I was kinda drained and got baited to select A without reading and giving much of a thought to the other options.

Ah, was blindsided with my own experience/assumptions on whether exercising helps to deal with stress (thinking it does), so skipped E presuming that it's not flawed but it actually is totally workable argument.

Good lord, these sentences are sometimes so dense to comprehend. Literally couldn't fathom what the stimulus was saying.

I got the part with the necessary and sufficient assumption in this question. E.g. thought about that other things like oxygen might be needed to support life. However, what confused me was the wording of A "would be able to support life". Because I took it in a way that it implies that Mars, if the Moon is present, can support life, but not necessarily will for the lack of other things such as sunlight, oxygen, and etc. On the contrary, B had the opposite (that it would be unable).

So I was hesitant and ended up choosing A.

Please help!

Still don't get how cultural differences can significantly affect symptoms of mental illnesses. It's my understanding that culture means language, food, traditions, literature, and etc. But it doesn't explain nor make sense in the frame of the argument.

Or was the word "culture" an overarching term to be politically correct and subtly hint to genetical differences between ethnicities? If that's the case, only then it starts to make sense.

Depending on when you started, you may not actually remember the earliest tests that you've taken, whether it was for drilling or PT. So give it a shot – poor memory can be, sometimes, useful.