I will give it a try! I think a helpful way practice this type of question is to parse out the argument structure. The prompt first stated some legislaters' view on the usage of public funds and then criticizes their view as reductive in defining the "contribution to public welfare" aka "ignores the lessons of experience" (the conclusion). The rest is the support for the conclusion - exactly how the legislators earlier in the argument ignores the lessons of experience, strengthened by an example of the discovery of antibiotics as a unexpected outcome from the study of mold. The main point, then, is say hey don't be so restrictive in terms of considering what is useful to public welfare, think about mold and antibiotics! The study of mold doesn't seem so useful at first does it, but it did paved the way for the development of antibiotics!

B is neither the main point nor its logical relationship matches up with the prompt. In the prompt, it says if those legislators cannot be assured the contribution to the public welfare, then they refuse. That doesn't mean if they are assured, they will not refuse. Even if you negate it, it will be [if they dont refuse, then they are assured about the contribution to the public welfare]. In other words, being assured is not a sufficient assumption to their non-refusal of public funds.

Hope this helps!

I’m also in. Thank you so much for doing this.

It took me 2:36 to move on from this question. Got this right without really processing A but just felt this probably was the one. Won the battle lost the war.

Also, this might be (highly probable) just my distorted brain cells going off tangent but considering the relevance of first sentence, is the dietitian in anyway saying fat is artificial supplement??? Why the first sentence is there otherwise? Is it just a random statement got thrown up there?

#help (Added by Admin)

Picked D first and then changed it to B. The reasoning for the change was that I failed to see the relevance of analogy. All I was thinking under timed was 'how is this analogy even relevant in supporting the conclusion'. Just because quantitively speaking, the cost of reduction is not significantly higher than chemical industry cannot justify saying it is not "prohibitively expensive" for the fossil-fuel producers.

But since this is a strengthening question and all you need to do is to better the connection between the premise and the conclusion, it means you don't have to make the argument airtight (unlike sufficient assumption question). And my mistake from picking d to b is a strategic one. I didn't try to make the analogy in the prompt more relevant. D makes the shitty argument better by adding a lil more relevance to the analogy (I will not budge on the 'lil") whereas B omits a crucial element (does it even reduce the emission to the level of halting global warming).

It does bother me sometimes that the discretion you give to strengthening questions varies question by question. It could just be strengthening a little, or a lot (in easier questions). Also, some potential saves on the side of the question probably lies on that the conclusion says it "probably false" rather than something like "it is decidedly false". Such a cheeky maneuver.

This long-ass comparative one really messes with me! Under timed I just eliminated the other answers and stick with C with hesitation. I had no problem with understanding the fewer inaccurate details than others under the first lawyer's questioning, but I DID misunderstood when it says those then had a greater number of inaccurate details in the second lawyer's cross-examination. The important point is greater number compared to whom!!! Not to their own prior result or "the most other witnesses" under the first lawyer's questioning, BUT to their counterparts after their counterparts' factual accuracy has been partially corrected by the cross-examination.

I saw the greater number of inaccurate details and did not comprehend fully of the subject of the comparison. 2 min of being stuck at this question for the misunderstanding AGH.

#help I eliminated E because I consider it as an assumption Z and S made rather than the inference that can be possibly drawn...

Congratulations!!!

Besides the fact that I didn't see "sign" as a way of communication under timed, the physical exertion of "speech production" probably would've trapped me to exclude D for irrelevant analogy (sign language vs. speech production).

Really should adjust my standard for strengthening questions. Don't anticipate and don't rule out those seemingly tangent answer choices just by first glance!