Answer A example: Because he is English, Mark Clattenburg's opinion of a VAR decision about England vs. Norway is more likely to be in England's favor than a more recent and non-English opinion.

Pretty straightforward question to be rated at this difficulty.

For A to be true, there would need to be a restatement of A->B, therefore A->B. Tweak the wording and descriptions slightly, but you can't tweak the order for it to be circular.

What the argument says is:

If Blankenship switches --> No profit. A-->B

Therefore: If no profit --> Blankenship switched. B-->A

B is the choice that illustrates that if there is no profit, there could have been other reasons as to why.

@PowerUp_Tutoring Could be, but there is also no explicit mention that those making the criticism are a part of the group.

It's interesting to me that so many people chose C. I think the takeaway to avoid making that mistake is that you have to drill into exactly what evidence Smith is disputing. He's not disputing that people migrated, when they migrated, or that no tools have been found.

Rather, Smith disagrees with WHY no tools have been found: "Those tools were found in peat bogs, which are rare in the Americas. Wooden tools in soils other than peat bogs usually decompose within only a few years."

The assumption that tools would exist if the people had been there isn't explicitly stated = it is implicit. That diction matches up with E.

This one is relatively easy if you use process of elimination.

To confirm E though, consider that:

Jane supposes

1. no general agreement as to ideal sound

2. no widely accepted basis for evaluating guitar's sound

Mark supposes

1. if harper's ideas resulted in superior sound, they would have been adopted

2. torres design took 10 years for adoption because of improved tonal quality

Either of Mark's can be seen to conflict with Jane's, and taken together they are that much more in opposition.

@SlippinJimmy2026 Not to get too obvious, but think "suppose" and it's pretty clear...

D is faulty due to the fact the answer choice includes stated as a qualifier before it refers to premises. Stephen is disputing an unstated premise (i.e. an assumption). That's answer choice A.

E is faulty as Zachary's conclusion is actually very consistent with the premises he uses; what it is inconsistent with is an implicit/unstated/assumed etc. premise. Again, that's A.

@maxshore097 You could indeed argue that. But if where you are going is to argue for answer D, consider that this answer choice includes stated as a qualifier before it refers to premises. Stephen is disputing an unstated premise (i.e. an assumption). That's answer choice A.

This is for everyone that chose D.

The answer choice is, "questioning the judgment of the proposal’s backers by citing past cases in which they had advocated programs that have proved ineffective."

The stimulus DOES "[question] the judgment of the proposal’s backers by citing past cases." Sounds good so far.

But then the answer choice veers off course: "...in which they had advocated programs that have proved ineffective." The THEY here is the proposal's backers.

The stimulus does NOT state that these backers were associated with past programs. It merely refers to these programs generally. That's where D makes itself incorrect.

@Karl! I think you mean Mondale

@rucksarlawstudentapplicant68 the idea is that if a song is good, then it continues to be recorded. the 40's had lots of songs recorded, so they must be part of the best era of songs.

Jerome says that's fair, but also adds that there are great songs that are so good (durable) that they aren't rerecorded; instead, that song continues to be played and endure. He shifts the argument to, "...the best rock songs will prove to be durable." That's what D says.

The only answer choice I thought was also appealing was A. However, Tom's conclusion is, "public resentment over the size of executives’ salaries is justified." What premise does he subsequently agree to drop in support of this conclusion? Answer: none, he simply adds clarifying detail.

ad hominem ftw!!!

@AcasiaGiannakouros because the stimulus is directly addressing what the cause(s) might (or might not) be for what happened. The reasoning behind that is what the conclusion is taking aim at.

ad hominem ftw!!!

Hypothesis: newborn sea turtles learn the smell of their birth environment, and it is this smell that stimulates the turtles to return to nest.

Attack the hypothesis.

a) Beaches on which sea turtles nest tend to be in secluded locations such as on islands. Doesn't weaken.

b) Sea turtles exposed to a variety of environments under experimental conditions preferred the environment that contained sand from their own birthplaces. Interesting. Maybe they like the sand then rather than smell. Come back to this.

c) Electronic tags attached to sea turtles did not alter their nesting patterns. Doesn't weaken.

d) Unlike other types of turtles, sea turtles have a well-developed sense of smell. Doesn't weaken.

e) Sea turtles that had their sense of smell destroyed by exposure to petroleum products returned to nest at their own birthplaces. Ah, this one directly weakens more effectively. If they lost their sense of smell and yet still found the right place then it couldn't have been smell that guided them. Better answer than C.

For future people stopping by: as of 7/7/26 the description for the answer choices in the analysis is wrong.

Answer C says "Descriptively inaccurate. Craig reject’s Rikfa’s implicit premise that they are lost. There is no indication that he accepts Rifka’s explicit premise. It’s unclear if he’s implying anything. Rather, he explicitly contradicts Rifka’s conclusion."

In fact Craig rejects Rikfa's implicit premise that they are NOT lost. He does this by saying...WE ARE LOST. Otherwise he wouldn't be denying anything and instead would be agreeing.

@PowerUp_Tutoring That is incorrect.

B is indeed the answer but the statement referred to is the one that "that mentions driver education." That statement is in the sentence following the one you cited, "...educate drivers about bicycle safety."

The statement is comparing the effectiveness of burglary systems vs. car alarm systems. We're told the latter is ineffective. Predict the answer choice and consider what a logical response would be if that information was excluded: to avoid wasting resources like this, why not simply quit responding and/or pass a law getting rid of the alarms?

But we know that unlike the car alarm systems, burglar alarm systems ARE effective in deterring burglaries. Since they're effective, we shouldn't get rid of them. But the argument does make it clear we want to still protect public resources utilized when responding to false alarms. At this point the answer point should be pretty obvious, but let's go through them.

a) It justifies placing more restrictions on owners of burglar alarms than on owners of car alarms. We only compared the effectiveness of the respective alarms. This addresses material not covered.

b) It provides background information needed to make plausible the claim that the number of burglar alarms police are called on to answer is great enough to be a drain on public resources. Nope, that is done elsewhere in the stimulus.

c) It provides a basis for excluding as unacceptable one obvious alternative to the proposal of fining owners of burglar alarm systems for false alarms. That seems aligned with the predictions above to simply outlaw the alarms or quit responding.

d) It gives a reason why police might be more inclined to respond to burglar alarms than to car alarms. This is a trap answer. Since burglar alarms are effective in deterring burglaries, is that why police respond? No, at least not directly. Some sort of connection between "affluent users and business owners" might work here, but that's not what the question uses as support.

e) It explains why a disproportionate number of the burglar alarms responded to by police come from alarm systems owned by businesses. This is not related to what is being asked.

We are trying to find how we can further equate "health education" to propaganda. To do that, we need features of propaganda.

There are actually only 2 things we know about propaganda: 1) it attempts to influence behavior using slogans 2) it is more successful than education.

a) that is NOT education, but doesn't necessarily describe propaganda

b) again that is NOT education, but doesn't necessarily describe propaganda

c) this one is both NOT education and also is the opposite of what we know propaganda to include

d) this is one of the two things we know about propaganda. Have to see about E but definitely seems like a winner

e) this one is a little tricky as it seems like a possible answer. We already know this though, since the stimulus states "health education" is usually propaganda and later propaganda is much more successful than education. There is no need to assume anything.

D is the correct answer.

@hendale23 Well said.

If you want to argue that the philosopher is looking to disprove the conclusion you might be right, but only indirectly as he attacks the premise.

So sure, maybe he is attacking the premise in order to get at the conclusion, or maybe he simply thinks the premise is wrong. We don't know.

What DO we know? We know he is attacking the premise.

@milank2711 A couple years later but A doesn't work because the line of poetry was supposedly a reference to Darwin's theory. It does NOT say it's a description of his theory.

Some close reading involved but refer != describe; the latter is much more comprehensive whereas poetry frequently alludes to ideas but less often describes scientific theories.

E has support through:

1) Darwin's theory wasn't public until 1859

2) Tennyson published his poem in 1850

3) Contextual analysis makes it clear the line was actually a reference to creationism

This is simply an invalid hill for you to die on.

@LaTuya:3 That choice is actually what is already covered in each of the 3 situations to some degree though.

Journalist is the surprised one = don't intrude + don't use IASD

Someone else is surprised = if we should care then we need to know who specifically + don't use IASD

Lots of people surprised = duh, that's obvious + don't use IASD

According to the stimulus there are no other remaining possible situations where IASD would be appropriate. That makes A, B, D all incorrect by default.

C is accurate, but not a conclusion.

E is both the only remaining and also aligns with the conclusion of the argument.

The answer choices aren't too difficult with a caveat that C and D both have first glance appeal.

While D does use purpose like the stimulus, it includes the idea that one must understand the purpose of law. That is a good idea in a vacuum, but not explicit in the stimulus or significantly implied.

C stretches across sentences 3,4, and 5, making it both comprehensive as well as directly visible in the stimulus. Better answer, although I would argue D could be a correct answer if C were missing.

The answer here needs to address in some what how normal auction items or extremely desirable items are different.

A) doesn't do that

B) doesn't do that

C, D, E all do that.

C: that makes sense that the seller would want to make a profit. But why would that be different than a less desirable auction instance? Not compelling.

D: So if an item is extremely desirable then interested parties can guess who others might be. That might make the price a little more predictable, maybe what resources the buyers can afford. Why does that matter in terms of the protection being needed though? Again, not compelling.

E: The idea is that because the item is so desirable, then a bid will need to be in turn so high that it's not reasonable. That is both different from a normal item and seems like that corresponds with the need for protection being needed in case a token bid (or multiple) are made. Correct answer.