Question 1... is X ←s→ H

(some X-wings have hyperdrives) the logical equivalent of

X ←s→ /H

(some X-wings don't have hyperdrives) b/c both imply the existence of some X-wings having and some not having hyperdrives?

question 2:

"Having blue eyes is largely determined by genetics, as indicated by a recent study that found most people with blue eyes have a relative with blue eyes. Conversely, individuals without blue eyes are far less likely to have a relative with blue eyes."

wouldn't the last sentence be a non-sequitur unsupported claim (rather than a premise)? If this is all the info we have, how do we know that this came from the study referenced in the first sentence? In this paragraph alone, it does not say that this is info from the aforementioned study.

Just found the answer to my own question under Practice > Drills > Show existing drills, in case this is helpful to anyone else

Hear me out on A though...

"A factor (for example, a slipped disc) that need not be present in order for a certain effect (for example, serious back pain) to arise may nonetheless be sufficient to produce that effect."

In other words, a slipped disc does not need to be present to cause serious back pain but can be something that nonetheless causes serious back pain.

And this is why I chose A when I blind reviewed...

Chose B initially. Is that reading of A wrong?

I see a lot of questions (and I have the same question myself) about how Q4 has the conclusion it does when the overall actual meaning of the sentence is that there is NO evidence either way (whether humans act selfishly or unselfishly more often). Therefore, we don't know which one has more of the quality (i.e., which happens more often).

But I am not finding an answer. Help?

I see a gap in this question. There is nothing in the stimulus that actually says that a fully qualified candidate who does not already work for arvue ALSO needs to be the most productive. That is an assumption.

"Most productive" is a descriptor that the stimulus does not apply to the "fully qualified" and in fact does not apply it until the given situation where none of arvue's current employees are FQ for the role. Furthermore, in the given situation, the stimulus also does not specify that the company should even hire a qualified candidate. Maybe the candidate is qualified or is not. Either way, as long as they are the most productive we're good. According to the rule given in the stimulus.

Therefore, I was looking for an answer choice to confirm that Delazcruz did not already work for Arvue. But since Delacruz-- given in the stimulus-- IS fully qualified, the fact that she is also the most productive candidate is actually /becomes completely irrelevant.

Though I got this one right, I was very close to choosing

C. For the most part, designs that are produced by small companies are superior to the designs produced by Baxe.

Maybe I need to review most / some, but "several" seems to imply at least 51% or more, which would be most