@HimajaReddy As many of the other comments on this thread address, "contemporary" does not refer to "modern" but rather Da Ponte's times (i.e. 1588). I am still having a hard time understanding how while "Prior to 1700, pilings were driven to 'refusal,' that is, to the point at which they refused to go any deeper..." does not constitute a standard for the "other bridge builders of his day." I now understand that because he "met the contemporary standard for refusal," he could not have been "less strict than that of other bridge builders of his day." But I still do not understand how this is compatible with the "Prior to 1700" (i.e. including 1588), "standard".

@serendipitree Replying to myself because I'm reviewing this question and think I figured it out. Even if "Glutamate is the only neurotransmitter that leaks from oxygen-starved or physically damaged nerve cells," based on the stimulus, we do not know whether Glutamate in the blood actually leaked from damaged/oxygen-deprived cells. Because of this, even if we know that Glutamate is the only neurotransmitter, we cannot determine whether it leaked from damaged nerve cells and therefore has little effect on the argument.

D) On the other hand, establishes that damaged nerve cells are the only possible source and that therefore the presence of G is indeed from damaged nerve cells which helps to establish the conclusion that "glutamate leaking from damaged cells is a cause of long-term brain damage."

I feel like I reasoned the exact opposite of what the test writers intended.

My (flawed) reasoning:

A) This introduces the possibility that meats were not being smoked, but rather cooked via fires that "produced more heat than smoke."

B) If no other means were available, this strengthens that meats were cooked via smoke of lichen and grass fires.

Unwarranted Assumption: If lichen and grass create a lot of smoke, there is no other way of cooking (i.e. through heat of fire).

Better, more accurate reasoning:

A) This does not necessarily negate that meats were being cooked on smoke fires from lichen and grass.

B) If lichen and grass were the only sources of heat or light available, introduces the possibility that meats were cooked in fires, albeit subpar, and not smoke.

I did not like this question at all, but I suppose there are always going to be a few controversial ones and weaken questions never seem to have been my strong suit.

In all honesty, I'm still struggling to see why answer choice A is wrong but alas....

@epayne17 Hi! So I finally figured this out...

A) Even if Celia is a reasonable person, the stimulus does not say that Celia (or any other reasonable person) would read the insurance policy thoroughly before signing it. It therefore does not trigger the second part of the conditional statement made in the principle.

B) This absolutely triggers the conditional statement in the principle. If a reasonable person would not have read Celia's insurance policy thoroughly before signing it (doesn't negate the fact that Celia is a reasonable person, maybe she didn't read it thoroughly too), then we can say the reasonable expectations of the policyholder should take legal precedence over the specific language written in the policy. If Celia reasonably expected the policy to cover hail damage, then it helps to justify that the insurance company should be required to cover the hail damage.

Hope this helps!

I interpreted D to mean "Other North American artifacts" as in artifacts created by those living in North America. If this were the case, it would weaken the argument by introducing the possibility that the human-made projectile was created by a North American, not a Eurasian settler, and thereby weakening the conclusion that "the first Eurasian settlers in North America probably came from a more distant part of Eurasia."

It is only on reflection that I realize that there were no "native North Americans" during the Ice Age, and that the first Eurasian settlers in North America are likely the first settlers in North America at all.

Could someone let me know if this line of reasoning is correct?

The stimulus states that "the law-abiding majority who by their actions do most to create and maintain this environment." If this is the case, then the conclusion that "and nothing else," does not follow since the law-abiding majority do most (not all) to create and maintain this environment." Thoughts?

A) the passage states that between 1934 and 1939 "scientists compiled increasing evidence that nuclear fission had been achieved, without, however, recognizing what they were witnessing," which connects to the notion that "the relevant evidence had been present for some time," and that relevant evidence being from the results of these studies.

D) this answer choice refers more to the "lacking right conceptual link" rather than "the relevant evidence".

This was my reasoning... Let me know any thoughts! "Any non-sterilized food preserved by an acceptable method" can only be "slowing the growth of disease-causing bacteria" which itself implies that "can contain disease-causing bacteria." Further, the stimulus states that "any food that is not sterilized and sealed can contain disease-causing bacteria," which means that food treated by the acceptable food preservation technique of "slowing the growth of disease-causing bacteria," (that does not involve "sterilizing and sealing food") "can contain disease-causing bacteria."

@HimajaReddy How is this answer choice ("people who exercise regularly are more likely to drink decaffeinated beverages than those who do not") different from saying that "people who drink decaf exercise more/less"? If "people who exercise regularly are more likely to drink decaffeinated beverages than those who do not," doesn't that demonstrate a correlation between regular exercisers and decaf beverage drinkers (which includes coffee) which affects the argument by introducing a potential third-variable for the cause of arthritis?

I selected C because I thought that glutamate being "the only neurotransmitter that leaks from oxygen-starved or physically damaged nerve cells" eliminates the possibility that other neurotransmitters being released into the blood stream "is a cause of long-term brain damage resulting from strokes." Perhaps the conclusion arguing that glutamate specifically "leaking from damaged or oxygen-starved nerve cells is a cause of long-term brain damage," focuses on the way in which glutamate "leaking from damaged or oxygen-starved nerve cells is a cause of long-term brain damage," and not whether glutamate specifically is a factor is such. Still having a hard time wrapping my head around this, if any would like to comment!

For A, from the fact that it is her insurance policy and that she is a reasonable person, why are we not able to conclude that a reasonable person seeking insurance (Celia) would not read it thoroughly?