I initially picked AC C because exporting more unprocessed wood would mean fewer processing plants be utilized=job loss. During blind review, I regretfully changed my AC to B, because I assumed that a loss of total timberland would result in job elimination even if the demand for timber is still high..... DOH.

I eliminated AC D because it mentioned eating outside the home, and the whole comparison was specific to eating inside the home..... ugh.

This question was sneaky. Most answer choices have you thinking the discrepancy has to do with population, but the question stem asks you to find "...the difference between the behavior of lottery winners..."

why do i feel like i read the same questions over and over again

I liked A, but I thought they were referring to an expert witness. Why would it matter if the expert was not directly involved? They aren't benefitting at all, but now I see the larger conflict of interest.

im not even mad i got this wrong.

Got down to AC B and D.

Initially picked D, because the censorship advocate's rebuttal is rather irrelevant. However, during blind review I switched to AC B, because I thought 'extracts an erroneous principle from a commonly held belief' was referring to the Argumentum ad populum fallacy(because a certain opinion or attitude is held by a majority, it is therefore correct).

I guess a fallacy is not the same as a principle?? That was a misinterpretation on my behalf....

basically all answer choices AC adds "will experience" with certainty

D is the only AC where the concept is applied correctly, and we know for certain would not work.

well this was a disappointing question set.....fml

AC A, the counterexample given is not a "misanalysis" but it seems to be an outlier, which isn't a good representation to the generalized idea of words ending in "-ee"

I initially picked AC-C, but during blind review I imagined JY going over the answer choices: "AC C....leads to an absurdly false conclusion?? UMMM NO! Absurdly false? I don't even know what to say about this, its just not that" and crosses it off. Turns out, I did pick correctly. JY has gotten to my head.

For a moment there, AC E almost had me convinced there are two policies present in the argument.

Rarer=FEWER

Sneaky little.....

Stim: "In a rain cloud, water molecules containing oxygen-18 are rarer(fewer) than water molecules containing normal oxygen"

AC-A rewords this: "Once it is formed over the Atlantic, the rain cloud contains more ordinary(normal)oxygen than oxygen-18.

If you picked AC E over AC D....

Not sure if this is the best explanation but I got the right answer.

D. Basically, ALL candidates are trash and she disagrees with them equally, therefore, she's not going to vote for any of them because to do so would be unacceptable according to her principle

(Kay's summarized Principle in my words: I will vote for the candidate with whom I have the fewest disagreements.)

E. Refers to a "particular candidate" and at face value it does appear unacceptable to vote for this candidate. However, we don't know about the other two candidates. Maybe this particular candidate is the best of the three, but we can't say for certain because we only have partial information and that doesn't work for a MBT.

"Some includes all" will be the death of me.

key words: "availability relative to demand"

This question was frustrating...... The only reason I even came to it, was by eliminating all other choices... I still was not happy with the answer. At best AC A seems like "could be true". You have to fill in a blank/make an assumption, which as I understand, you should not be doing on a MBT question. I thought the correct AC needed to be directly stated in the stimulus....I can understand the argument that it was indirectly stated-you just needed to make an assumption and draw a conclusion, but again, I didn't really expect that for a MBT question. Ughhh back to studying. SMH

I just used process of elimination and got lucky.

A- service isn't ever mentioned WRONG

B- Was specific about Toronto--Dallas, and also mentioned constant dollars OK

C- ALL? We're talking about Toronto to Dallas, and it was already given as premise WRONG

D- AVG number of passengers? Not mentioned. Who cares. WRONG.

E- Criteria not mentioned WRONG

How is squandering NOT harming smh.

P=Placentals, SFFLD=Swim, fly, float, long distance

Prem: P→SFFLD

What AC goes here?

_

Con: P--> /N

P→SFFLD→/N or contra N→/SFFLD

AC C: The only native placental ancestor's could not SFFLD

Prem: MB→D→/P

SubPrem: MB→/P

???

----------

Con: S→/MB

AC D: S→P or contra /P→/S

This answer was so obvious I questioned picking it smh

I only picked answer B due the the language "not significantly less"

Which I interpreted to mean it could have been significantly more, and since you would need more small planks that would make the price go way up, which would support the argument.

#smh

so....Homer was not translated until modern times because there was not a demand.

A-shows that people had them in their possession since ancient times, but were not translated until modern times, which supports their conclusion.

So if I understand answer D correctly.... The merchants lessened the price of cigarettes to offset the new tax, and people STILL SMOKED LESS? That shows that even given the incentive of purchasing at a lower price there was a still a decrease in smoking. Which in this case, must have been due to the anti-smoke campaign??

This question requires sooooo many assumptions to even slightly understand what they're trying to get at. Answer choice C is just re-stating the obvious, which is they can't fix the problem without the fishermen's cooperation..... okay cool. That doesn't really support or weaken the argument.... the only way to come to this answer is to eliminate everything else. This question can burn.