1 min.

Ugh I wish I could delete my own comments LOL - but I see how what I said about D is actually wrong. The word "decrease" just isn't strong enough!

To further explain this, imagine 8 years ago we started off with 11 bears: 5 in the preserve and 6 in the other parts of the valley (this is OK to do since "most" does not come into play until the present via the premise "... is where most of the bears in the valley preside" - the word "is" explicitly implies the present. Anyway, then in the 8 years that the road has been closed, the preserve bears population nearly doubles. Ok so now we have lets say 9 bears in the preserve and still 6 bears in the other parts of the valley. This allows for the conclusion to properly follow that the valley's bear population did actually increase.

So then if we look at D about the valley areas outside the preserve decreasing the bear population, this actually still doesn't tell us what happened to the decreasing bears. Did they migrate to the preserve? Did they die? So this for me, is why D doesn't do it enough.

E still works with the assumption that most bears did live in preserve 8 years prior to road closing.

What I do not like about this question is that it says MOST of the valley's bears live in the preserve NOW, but it says nothing about 8 years earlier if most of them also lived in the preserve. I think JY does not pick that up in his explanation and makes a temporal flaw in the beginning of his explanation. We could very well have started off with most bears of the valley outside the preserve in the past 8 years, the "most" just comes into play in the present.

To refute a principle, aka a sufficient-necessary, you just need to show one instance, aka one counter example, of the sufficient without the necessary. The stimulus did that with if there is Evolution --> then Survival has been Optimized. The author is saying this is not always the case and shows there is evolution with moose, but it was not for optimized survival because larger antlers makes them prone to predators.

I ended up eliminating E because even if voting patterns change among age groups in the future, young voters could change from 50% voting to only 25% voting. So change is not always an increase. Additionally, I was struck by the word "regularly" - if voting records regularly show that people over 65 vote in higher percentages than young people - people are always getting older and that does not stay constant. So as voting records will indicate, as people in one generation get older they begin to start voting more.

I chose D, but I think it is wrong for a different reason than the explanation. Please feel free to chime in and correct me. I do not think it is out-of-line for people reading this to use a common sense assumption that nearly all coffee (no matter if it is light or dark roast) has the same amount of caffeine. So with that assumption, A is still correct and D almost is.

I think D is wrong because "some people" switching just isn't strong enough, because "some" could just mean one person. I think D could be right if it said "Does everyone who drinks dark roast drink 4 more cups per day than light roast drinkers?" Because by drinking more cups of coffee per day (with dark and light being equal caffeine) then yes drinking whichever coffee was being drunk more would increase caffeine consumption and thus tie in the first sentence gap that caffeine irritates stomach acid. Thoughts?

I appreciate this explanation so much! Once you said "new" stress, the light bulb in my brain turned on and I understand it so much better, thank you!

The conclusion "that very disposition [referential to statement before] prevents some acts of altruism from counting as moral" can be thought of as "by going off that very disposition mentioned above, SOME acts of altruism are NOT moral." The statement "some ... not" can be reversed to a "not all" statement. Hence, C is a paraphrase of that "some ... not" statement: "Not all altruistic acts are moral behavior." Or at least that is my understanding of it. Although it does almost seem like the conclusion was disagreeing with this notion, so I think that's why it was confusing when going down to the answer choices.

I am retaking in Jan!