Picked E because I equated "susceptibility" to "not being able to prevent" and was struggling to pick between E and B :/
The wording got the best of me...
Thank you for this!
Here is how I understood it: Let's say you eat 2000cals a day, and all 2000 of them are food-based. If you were in the second group, they took away 25% of that 2000cal food that you eat. 25% of 2000 is 500, so when you take it away, you are left with 1500cals of food. The scientists replaced those 500cals of food with 500cals of alcohol. So they still consumed 2000cals a day, but 500 of them were now through alcohol instead of food. I hope this helped!
Ugh same! I read option B and said "this does not make sense at all, how do you know that?" and moved on :/
A "side effect" of blind reviews that I did not consider: I start doubting my gut feeling and prior knowledge when reviewing my answers. I picked the right answer for this question during the quiz, but ended up doubting myself when doing the blind review. I hope this goes away.
I am just so confused about the answer choices provided and why A is the correct answer. Nowhere did the paragraph say that it is premature to talk about the critics' concerns.
Admin Note: Edited Title. Please use the format "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of question"
Your clarification was very helpful. Thank you!
Here is what I realized after thinking about this for a very long time: we need to forget about whether they consciously inhibit the emotion or unconsciously. It is the same with the answer choices. Therefore, when A talks about the nonrepressors, it applies to both the repressors and the nonrepressors, because it does not matter whether they consciously did it or not (which is the characteristic that divides them in the first place.)
To simplify, the two groups don't matter, and it doesnt matter whether AC A would mention repressors or non-repressors. There is simply a gap which we need to defend.