Waffled for a minute between B and E, but ultimately chose the correct answer B. The argument includes the assumption that watching foods consumed or hearing them mentioned on TV influences TV audiences' eating habits. E is talking about foods that will become popular - however, we still do not know whether the causal link in the answer is between TV viewing and dietary habits. Just because TV leads to accurate predictions on food consumption , it doesn't support the argument that TV directly leads to those changes in consumption. When negated, E also doesn't fail the argument - if TV didn't lead to accurate predictions, so what? That doesn't mean that people still aren't influenced by TV.

B is necessary as we must assume that people are influenced by what they see on TV for the argument to be true.

I also chose B incorrectly - but this is how I understood why it was wrong.

B claims that Chin and Waller disagree on whether ESP could be demonstrated to satisfy all skeptics. I initially interpreted this as correct because Waller says if ESP were real, it could be demonstrated to public satisfaction. However, they do not claim it can be proven to satisfy all skeptics - they do not address skeptics at all, only claim it would be generally accepted (leaves room for skeptics). It is possible that Waller believes that skeptics will still exist and cannot be satisfied. Waller does not disagree or agree with Chin on the potential to satisfy all skeptics - therefore, B is incorrect.

Then, I went back and re-read the stimulus and got a clearer understanding of exactly what Waller and Chin were arguing. Waller's argument is that if ESP exists, the public would believe it (ESP exists → public acceptance). This aligns with what answer choice D presents. D says, "The failure of the general public to believe in extrasensory perception is good evidence against its existence" - i.e. if the public doesn't accept ESP, that is evidence it doesn't exist aka. /public acceptance → /ESP exists (which is logically consistent with what Waller is saying). Chin is arguing that that does not matter and that even if ESP existed, as long as the cultural elite remain skeptical, ESP will not be accepted by the public. That is the crux of their disagreement - that if ESP were real it would be accepted (with Waller agreeing and Chin disagreeing).

I get your confusion since these indicators are so similar!

For the oral myths statement, the indicator is "the only" (Group 1). But for the high-flying birds of prey statement, the indicator is "only" (Group 2) - because it doesn't say "the only," it says "only the." Therefore, the oral myths statement had a Group 1 logical indicator, but the high-flying birds of prey statement is a Group 2 logical indicator, meaning that the concept right after is the necessary condition.

Hopefully that makes sense - they're very similar indicators, so whenever I see "only," I always take a minute to re-read the sentence and make sure I'm using the correct grouping.

"The only" is a Group 1 indicator. "Only" - which is a separate indicator from "the only" - is a Group 2 indicator. Therefore, if you see "the only," the concept after will be the sufficient condition and go on the left side of the arrow.

It can get confusing because "the only" and "only" are quite similar - remember to look out for "the".