Another way of looking at incorrect answer D is that passage A showed no real skepticism towards Evolutionary Theory so how can they be more or less skeptical if they use it as the basis of there argument about evolutionary psych.

Yes I agree with you and I thought the same thing when I was down to choice C and D. There was some discussion about changes in women culture in the second paragraph, which made me have to take a deeper look at choice C. I like that you brought up the "over broad generalization of said effect to all forms of social change and all forms of literature". I was still having trouble eliminating C even after I chose D so looking at it this way helped me a lot. Thank you! What ultimately made me eliminate C was the point D made about describing reality in ways that were not done previously as this has a stronger holding in the text which considering this the question asked for the most supported generalization it made more sense to choose D. For C you had to stretch the text a bit more to make it fit. It was really difficult choosing between the two as I do believe C is somewhat supported but not as strongly as D. It's no wonder this question was characterized as max difficult,

Hello,

I think B is incorrect because the stimi mentions the alternative to the Dvorak would make typing "faster" thus alluding to its efficiency. The stimi never alluded to the qwerty being more efficient or faster so we really cannot argue that people settle on the standard due to it's efficiency. In fact, one could argue the opposite.

I can see why you would think the standard is more efficient than dvorak since the stimi does mention that "switching" to Dvorak would essentially be a hassle. But this is why it's super important to really pay attention to the wording in the stimi. The stimi is not arguing the standard is more efficient, it's arguing that switching would be inefficient. Hope that helps!!

My reasoning for answer choice E being incorrect may be helpful without having to think about sets or subsets. I realized that we simply just don't know what all the data is. The premise implies that the data is misleading because it does't account for soil conditions like the varying conditions in local soils. But we don't actually know much more about the data. Therefore how can we know that data only testing one molecule is misleading when we don't even know the full scope of the data.

I already knew I was wrong by the way he started off this video with "I want to remind you of something"