YES PLEASE! in/out is actually my worst type :(

I think D is correct not because people acquired credible confirmation, but merely confirmation( we simply have no idea whether it is credible or not).

If we weaken the argument by thinking that it is because they acquired credible confirmation, then we are actually targeting the conclusion, which is not sth we are told to do in a weakening question and also reason why A is wrong. In this case, D is correct because it does not dismiss the conclusion altogether.

I thought B and E are either equally correct or equally incorrect.

B says that bacteria X will grow resistance to any antibiotics that are available on the market if used against it for a few years, under the condition that there is no other antibiotic that is strong enough to eliminate it.

E: bacteria X is more resistance to some antibiotics used against it than before those antibiotics are used against it, under the condition that it has been used for a few years

they both have a loophole and I just don't know which one is actually more problematic enough to be ruled out as the correct AC :(

Interested! yunxiariel@.com

I am still confused by D.

D states that there is no increase in the shell of dead diatoms during the last ice age. However, the conclusion talks about the hypothesis that ferrous helps to promote the number of algae, and diatom is ONE of the kinds of algae. So, even if the shell at the bottom of the Atlantic ocean shows no increase, it does not necessarily weaken the argument. There can be other kinds of algae that were promoted by ferrous? maybe diatoms did not even exist back then? Diatom is only one type of algae. If algae did not increase, there might not be other kinds of algae that did the work? who knows?

IF granted that D can be counted as weakening the argument, why doesn't C work? since there are minerals other than ferrous found in the trapped air bubbles, they might the competing explanation, which is that they are actually the ones that promote algae instead of ferrous?

#help

analogous case:

A: Throughout the 1980s to early 90s, people hardly watched TV. why is TV-watching so popular now?

B: Because many people in the 90s were watching some shows. Because those TV shows are popular and other TV programs are now catching on.

Instead of addressing the question of WHY people watch TV so much more often now as compared to before or why is it unpopular before (such as, because since the 90s, TVs are more affordable, etc) B just says that because people in the 90s are watching some shows that are popular and other shows caught on. B does not give a reason to answer A's question of why at all.

I understand how A works to strengthen the argument, but thought D also does the trick since if tent caterpillar's pheromones are different from other animals' pheromones, it further supports the conclusion that they are engaging in communal foraging because, by discerning their distinctive pheromones that contain informative data, one is able to know whether this trace of pheromones left by someone else from the colony is leading to food or merely just marks from explorative routes. If all species' pheromones are the same, how would the tent caterpillar know that the trace of pheromones is left by someone from their own colony or just by some other random animal for other purposes?

Another reason why E is wrong is that the part where "how to represent sound symbolically by means of letters" in E is not the same as learning "how sounds are represented symbolically by means of letters", as stated in the stimulus. Even if I granted that the Whole-language method DID successfully teach the children how sounds are represented symbolically by means of letters (passive knowledge), it does not mean that the children necessarily learned to actually represent the sounds symbolically by means of letters(application of knowledge).

I didn't choose B because it says "good art criticism" instead of just "art criticism". I thought "good" art criticism is in a different criteria from the "best" art criticism and M only commented on the best art criticisms. shouldn't it be correct when it just says "art criticism is sometimes unbiased"? since I don't think M even talk about good art criticism.