This is a low difficulty question because it's relatively easy to eliminate wrong answers, the wrong ones are made obviously wrong since they talk about something unrelated.

Utilizing the spectrum of support and POE was great help, even though it took me longer to confirm the right answer.

A and B is wrong because we don't know anything about storytellers and what they do or understand

D is wrong because noone is comparing anything

E is wrong because again, no storytellers mentioned, and the "best" is a red flag

-----

C is right because since study of various cultures reveal common themes, certain things might be in all cultures. The premise doesn't prove C to be absolutely right, but it is support it, and it is going that direction, and that is enough.

I eliminated B because I skimmed through it and thought it was just repeating the premise.

B is right because if most people have a quality, then most people a group of best people should also have that quality. This means the best people are good not because of the quality, but just because everyone has that quality.

------

A is wrong because firstly, some is weak, secondly, completed the degree before or after doesn't affect the argument.

E is wrong because some weak staff has opposite qualities doesn't mean those qualities are bad and should not be favored; it's too weak to do anything to the argument

The stim: people who cleanup received certificate

D is wrong because it's reversed: people who received certificate cleaned up. Not everyone who received the certificate participated, the stim doesn't say that spring cleanup is the only way.

-----

B is correct choice because at least one person who cleaned up and received the certificate are not active in the circles

Stim: flagellum must have all parts to make bacteria swim. Therefore, ancestor without all part gain no advantage from flagellum.

The gap: what if they still gain advantage from flagellum doing sth else.

B is correct because it confirms that the parts must help the bacteria swim for them to be advantageous.

----

A is comparing to other organism having no part, irrelevant

C doesn't do anything, vital or not doesn't mean anything since they are missing anyway, doesn't destroy the argument either way

D is irrelevant, we are talking about ones that had theoretically (maybe)

E is wrong because we are talking about missing parts and not the whole thing

C is wrong because have been shown doesn't mean it's the case now

B is then correct because it's straight to the point and leaves no other gap

Basically, the conclusion is saying since they have the same symptoms, one is more dangerous. They are both caused by the same shortage of oxygen, which might be able to be treated the same way, then why is one more dangerous.

B is wrong because assuming one thing caused by edma doesnt help the argument

C is wrong because we dont know if mountain sickness involves sth edama doesn't involve. Just one thing is not enough to destroy the argument

D is wrong because it doesn't address the two sicknesses

E doesn't even mention edema

-----

A is right because if they have the same treatment, and for one of them most people can recover, then the other one cannot be more dangerous

B is wrong because if the differences can be explained by the differences, it only helps the conclusion. Assuming this would only weaken.

B is wrong because the author did not takes for granted that colonies is the only way, he said "almost certainly." That's the red flag

------

A is correct because "growing incentive" doesn't mean it will be enough to build these colonies, and we can't safely assume that it's 100 percent will ever be enough.

That's the same assumption I made when I eliminated A

Did not truly understand the stim and the math. Being the team most likely to win among many other teams does not mean your chance of winning is more than 50%. The best team's chance can be 20%, and the other teams can be around 10%, and the best team will still be most likely.

Therefore E is correct, because it assumes that most likely to win means winning is more likely than losing for the team

----

C is wrong because it is not a flaw, the author is not wrong for predicting by comparing, the flaw is that the conclusion went beyond

B is wrong because no features was mentioned

A is wrong because the author did not presume the team to be best just because of evidence on competition

I completely overlooked that maintaining good health is not the same is avoiding heart disease.

D is wrong because the premise is relevant

E is wrong because the author discusses everything through probability and likeliness, not assuming that anything would occur

----

A is right because even though dairy food may cause heart disease, avoiding it can have consequences on good health

irritable -> tired. tired is necessary to irritable

conclusion is claiming tired -> irritable

E is correct, author tried to make tired a sufficient condition

----

A is wrong because no correlation was mentioned

D is wrong because the author never claims she lost her keys because she was tired.

This is the whole premise "Since she has been yawning all day, AND has just lost her keys,"

And this is the only conclusion: "she is almost certainly irritable."

Got confused because the first sentence says people argued that interest rates should be lowered in order to stimulate econ growth. This is barely background.

The conclusion is there is no (other) reason, and support is econ is already growing well. The flaw is clearly author assuming econ growth is the only reason.

D is wrong because conclusion is not about stimulating growth

E is wrong because it goes well beyond the argument and this irrelevant

The flaw is that the first sentence only say one is likely, not most likely (, or more likely than anything else), then ultimately concluded based on that "likely"

E is right because it's exactly what we need, the author did not consider other possibility

----

A is wrong because author never presumed this, "only if" is a red flag

B is wrong because the author never presented any fact that being comfortable (?) is a characteristic present is most any situation

C is wrong because "not a stranger" is irrelevant

D is wrong because author barely says something is likely to happen, not that something else never happen

POE

A is wrong because there was no presupposing

B is wrong because conveying info is completely irrelevant here

C is wrong because usefulness is irrelevant

E is wrong because there is no other definition of paraphrasing in this stimulus

---

D is right because author just pick one side and say that the other side is wrong, when there's no evidence for any side

A is wrong because the conclusion doesn't talk about assessment of the mayor's action (right or wrong). The conclusion is about whether the mayor is sacrificing the city for personal.

----

B is correct because if the mayor's action is advantageous for both personal and the city, then the mayor did not sacrifice anything.

Furthermore, from the premise after the conclusion, the author is assuming that because the mayor is heavily invested, his action is for personal and not the city. However, it can be consistent and he can benefit both.

-----

Chose A because I could not understand B and didn't focus on the red flag in A

It's because the stim never mentions if the product helps people quit smoking. Both the premise and the conclusion is about wehther the product helps reduce cravings (which is not them same as quit smoking)

Reduce cravings can eventually lead to quitting, but these two things are not the same, thus the flaw is never about quitting smoking.

Was overthinking.

I thought "because the respondents see far more current movies than does the average moviegoer" helps to address why this sample might be good.

But actually, this means that the respondents are different from others and therefore not representative.

E is wrong because the stim never mentioned any sample of movies

A, B and C are irrelevant.

E is wrong because, 1. we do not know if they were nearsighted as infant, and the nearsightedness stayed. 2. "several" is weak and doesn't help weaken anything.

---

D is correct because the author made the assumption that the other two studies still support that there is a correlation and that nearsightedness is disappearing.

D says that the two studies are basically useless, and therefore the first study is the only one showing anything, and the ultimately conclusion is destroyed

-----

eliminated D because I didn't understand what it is really saying, just skimmed it and fell into the E trap

The stim: children who do impulsive things that are similar to adults' thrill seeking stuff are more likely to have dopamine gene. Therefore, inclination to seek thrill cause this gene (or vice versa)

A is wrong because "unusually sensitive" is beyond the argument

C is wrong because we don't know if the research use what adults use to describe children's behavior. Also, descriptions have no effect on causal relationship, which is what the conclusion is

D is wrong because it doesn't affect the conclusion, since the argument never said anything about the same children researched growing up.

E is wrong because there can still be a causal relationship if one of the factor is correlated with others

------

B is correct because it weakens the premise. If the scientist cannot figure out what is impulsive behavior, they might mistake it with other behavior that is not similar to seeking thrill at all, then there is ultimately no relationship.

---- just have to practice reading more to understand stim under time constraint

From the stim, the company's share decreased while sale stay the same, which means the proportion of sales in the market decreased while the total number stay the same,

which ultimately means the rest of the market (other companies) have their combined share increased (proportion of sale increased), therefore their total sale must have increased. A is against that and cannot be true

----

B is wrong because since the company's share increased, the other companies' combined share can decrease.

C is wrong because we have no information on if things doesn't happen

D is also wrong because of lack of info about the future

E because we don't have information against this, if not support. Sales doesn't say anything about profit of each car.

----

Just need to familiarize myself with the terminologies

Maybe it was the first question I did that day, but I totally misread the stim. I initially read it as all the routes lead to food source, and as the person (not the caterpillars) track the route less marked, they can find food source because they are already taken the mark faded.

That's why doing drills and prepare yourself well mentally before the test is really important

The question stem is essentially asking us to justify the conclusion: no obligation to not cut down trees

We know if there is obligation to sth, that sth has right (if that sth doesnt have right, we have no obligation).

From this, we know that since trees don't have right, we have no obligation to the trees. However, we do not know if the obligation to cut down trees is owed to the trees or another entity. What if the neighbors wants us to not cut down trees, and they have rights, therefore we would still have an obligation to not cut down trees.

Therefore D is the only answer that make sure we don't owe the obligation to anyone else, therefore no obligation to not cut down trees.

The difficulty is understanding the tricky stimulus, as long as you understand it the answer shines, since other choices are irrelevant

A is wrong because where's the risk

B is wrong because no benefit, and not voluntary

D is wrong because all users of motor vehicles are not everyone who bears the risk. People who stay home suffer from these pollution without any benefit

E is wrong because no benefit and not voluntary

The stim is, if occupation should be licensed, the incompetence cause threat; or if incompetence doesnt cause threat, occupation should not be licensed.

The incompetence must pose threat for an occupation to "should be licensed", but it doesn't mean that all occupation with dangerous incompetence should be licensed.

Which is why C, D and E are wrong because these are saying that if these occupation are "dangerous", they should be licensed.