Wondering the same!

What (A) does is that it open up possibilities: a product CAN be both environmentally unsound and renewable & no chemical additive. But this is a JUSTIFY question - we need to demonstrate WHY, in THIS case, dried peat moss IS this kind of product which is both environmentally unsound and renewable. You can't justify the conclusion that "THIS apple is sour" by saying "apples CAN be sour" can you?! Take away: focus on justifying the particular instance at hand.

Chose B because I thought "for sake of consistency" means that higher-ranking employees and a Vernon must be treated the same. THIS IS NOT INCORRECT.

But there are two ways to treat them the same way:

1) give Vernon job back (suggested by argument), and

2) FIRE HIGHER-RANKING EMPLOYEES.

The argument is flawed in that it neglect the possibility of 2), and treat 1) as the only possible outcome, hence "inferring that one specific response to a problem (hire back V) is necessary without considering another equally supported response (fire higher-ranked employees) .

So it doesn't really matter if AC (C) mentions narcotic or any other random substance. As long as it introduce us a content in the tea other than caffeine, we should have chosen it, because it opens up other reasons why people don't drink it at dawn. E.g. the AC is "the tea contains Andocetincrage" we should go for it even having no idea what Andocetincrage means! Why is B wrong? We simply cannot assume that Akabe people would avoid caffeine for better sleep...what if they are night hunters?? what if they just want to get hyped right before sleep? We don't know!

Why is E terribly wrong?

E assumes that mild sleep deprivation is not unhealthy! ("a specific negative consequence is not associated with a given phenomenon")

How did one arrive at such an assumption? By FRIST assuming that more than 8 hours of sleep CAUSES people to be ill more often.

So, fundamentally, the issue is correlation-causation fallacy

a parallel flaw: A student of LSAT spends lots more time studying for the logic reasoning than studying for logic games. But she earns more points, on average, on logic games. Therefore she would increase her test score by spending less time studying for logic reasoning and more time for studying logic games.

Choice A is basically saying - well actually, there is more than 1 kind of improvements; even if your theory accounts for one of them, you cannot say it account for any kinds of improvement.

A: People who engage in different types of exercise exhibit same level of muscle growth. Therefore any muscle growth results from some aspects common to all sports.

B: There are different types of muscle growth. for example football leads to muscle growth in legs while basketball leads to growth in arms. Surely either one of those can't be explained by what's common between football and basketball.

I was also stuck on answer E), but I think at least the "exert economic power" part is never mentioned in the passage and thus render the choice invalid?

#help (Added by Admin)

Have the same issue...I understand why other options are wrong, but I will feel uncertain about selecting D. Why does earning require employment? For example, what if those people saved from injuries earn money by investing in the stock market?? That surely doesn't require a net increase in employment...

Wait, but if bees don't depend on color for finding flowers, why would flowers evolve to adapt to bee's vision?? 😳😳

#help

A fun way to this about this:

A and B compete over a set of True or False questions:

A gets a significantly higher proportion of all questions which answer is True correct than B.

But it's absurd to conclude that therefore A must score higher than B - A can get a lot of questions which answer is False wrong!