---

Bookkeeper B has no limitations. A cannot go with C. D cannot go with F or G. E cannot go with C. Although H has no limitations, he could be left in the old office with a combination of E, F and G. Another way of analyzing this question is to consider that to get two bookkeepers out of the three available ones, you must take either A or C, But not both.
The correct answer is (B).

---

If C goes you cannot use D.
The correct answer is (B).

---

Correct Answer: D
The argument's claim is: the "New Deal singlehandedly propelled the United States out of the Great Depression and into decades of uninterrupted prosperity." The argument's evidence for this is: "during the years following 1933, GDP grew, unemployment shrunk, and optimism increased." There are two major ways to undermine the claim that the "New Deal singlehandedly propelled the United States out of the Great Depression and into decades of uninterrupted prosperity." (1) Show that another event propelled the United States out of the depression. (2) Show that the New Deal did not propel the Unites States out of the depression. In order to weaken the argument, it would be helpful to weaken the evidence cited in the argument ("economists note that during the years following 1933, GDP grew, unemployment shrunk, and optimism increased").
A. The stimulus never states that the fear sparked in "some" (note that we do not know how many) by debt spending actually exceeded the fear of not debt spending on infrastructure etc.. Further, this answer never states that the fear actually translated into a reduction in GDP or an increase in unemployment (the two main factors used to support the argument).
B. This answer merely states that World War II "expanded" economic prosperity. There is a difference between expanding prosperity and propelling a country out of a recession (i.e., the New Deal may have propelled the USA out of the depression while World War II strengthened the already growing economy). This answer does not state that World War II "propelled the United States out" a depression and so it does not weaken the argument that it was the New Deal (not another program or event) that propelled the United States out of the Great Depression.
C. This answer speaks to the global condition while the argument pertains only to what "propelled the United States out" of the depression.

D. This answer undermines the notion that the New Deal "singlehandedly propelled the United States out of the Great Depression and into decades of uninterrupted prosperity" since the recession came back six years later.
E. This answer fails to weaken the original argument that the New Deal "singlehandedly propelled" the country out of the Great Depression since numerous other events could have propelled the country out of the depression between 1933 and 30 years after the mid-1930s.

---

Correct Answer: B
The conclusion of the stimulus is: "regulators noted that updated architectural norms and theory advised that the bridge's towers should be reinforced to meet anticipated increases in usage".
A. Since the bridge "should be reinforced to meet anticipated increases in usage," the author implies that the bridge is currently safe but should be reinforced to prepare for future changes in usage.
B. Two reasons are given for reinforcing: (1) "updated architectural norms" (2) "to meet anticipated increases in usage." Since the changes must be made for these two reasons, we can conclude that the original standards did not anticipate these two reasons/factors.

C. This answer states that the bridge still "will not be safe." The passage never states or implies that the bridge will not be safe. In fact, the words "to meet" seem to imply that the bridge will be safe with the changes.
D. The new architectural norms advocate the addition of supplemental reinforcements for the Watergate Bridge "to meet anticipated increases in demand." We cannot conclude that the historic regulations are faulty or that the situation with the Watergate Bridge mirrors that of every other bridge (i.e., since not every bridge is like the Watergate in its "anticipated increases in usage," we cannot conclude that every bridge needs the same reinforcements as the Watergate does).
E. The action should be undertaken because it is advised by regulators and is consistent with current design theory. The bridge was originally constructed "consistent with best-practices at the time" and the new reinforcements will helpmeet anticipated increases in usage." The stimulus gives no indication that current best-practices should be abandoned simply because it is impossible to predict future theory.

---

Correct Answer: E
The fundamental flaw in the argument is that it is comparing unlike parts. Specifically, the argument is comparing the net value of assets held by or in the name of a group with the net value of assets held by (and not in the name of) another group. It is quite possible that the large value of assets held for children or beneficiaries (e.g., trusts and estates) comprise large amounts of money.
A. The argument notes that the study considered "the net value of assets" (i.e., assets minus liabilities). Consequently, the study did adequately account for the role of debt in acquiring assets.
B. Eliminating one's debt via bankruptcy would not be unique to the twenty something demographic nor would debt spending change the value of net assets held in one's name.
C. The information about the tax code does not undermine the conclusion of the study. Instead, it simply provides an explanation for why the value of assets (not necessarily net assets) is larger than expected among twenty some things (i.e., tax incentives fueled it).
D. The argument is not based upon the exact amount of spending between age groups. Rather, the argument is based upon relative spending and saving between age groups.
E. The argument compares the assets held by and for the benefit of someone with the assets held by (and not for) a different type of person. This unlike comparison is not sufficient logical grounds to make an argument comparing the two groups