---

Correct Answer: C
If the political party's belief about the source of its public image is correct (i.e., "it is stereotyped simply because" [i.e., only because] of its position on military action and carbon emissions), any other political party that holds these two views (or more extreme versions of them) will have the same public image (or worse). If it can be shown that another political party hold these same two views (or views citizens consider more extreme) and yet this other party is popular, the argument is weakened. Note that the citizens do not consider the 50% carbon reduction extreme because they view it as too small but because they view it as too large (i.e., "a cut far more severe than most citizens want").
A. In order to undermine the original argument, we must show that a popular party supports both preemptive war and 50+% reductions in carbon emissions. It could be that the electorate will tolerate preemptive war, unless it is accompanied by large carbon cuts in which case the public cannot tolerate the political party anymore.
B. This answer provides information that is not relevant to the country in question. Although we might be tempted to believe that the attack on the neighboring country changed the attitudes toward preemptive war among citizens of the country in question, we cannot make this assumption, especially since the original question explicitly states that preemptive war "is unpopular" among the despised party's constituents. Further, this does not directly address the carbon reduction issue.
C. This answer shows that a party that is even more extreme on the two issues in question is popular. Consequently, it cannot "simply" be the unpopular party's stance on these two issues that causes the poor public image. Note as well that "unilateral attacks to defend the homeland" include preemptive attacks.

D. The original question implies that the party with a bad public image is unpopular because of its stance against preemptive military action and for environmentalism. If anything, this answer strengthens the original argument instead of weakening it since it provides some evidence that the party's positions on these two issues are a source of unpopularity.
E. This answer only deals with the "preemptive military action" and not the reduction in carbon emissions. Since the original argument depends "simply" (i.e., only) on these two issues and yet this answer only addresses one (and it addresses the one issue by referring back to 20 years ago, when the electorate and country no doubt were much different), this answer does not seriously weaken the original argument.

---

 Correct Answer: B
The argument concludes that "common medical problems such as depression" "will be all but eliminated through early identification and genetic therapy." This is based upon the assumption that the only cause of these common medical problems is a treatable genetic deformity. If this assumption proves false (and problems arise from non-genetic issues), the argument's conclusion is not logical as the genetic therapy would not stop common medical problems that were caused by non-genetic factors.
A. The original argument does not pertain to the number of treatments for common medical problems but rather pertains to the ability of early identification and genetic therapy to eliminate common medical problems. Consequently, whether there is only one method (the one described) or one million methods is irrelevant.
B. This answer points out that if common medical problems arise either in part or
in whole for reasons that are not genetic, early genetic detection and therapy will
not rectify the problem. The assumption that these common medical problems are based entirely on treatable genetic malformations is an essential part of the argument.
C. This may be a logical result (or consequence) if the original argument proves to be true. However, it is not a necessary assumption for the original argument to be true.
D. The original argument pertains to the ability of doctors to treat "common medical problems" when they exist not whether these "common medical problems" exist in everyone. Further, the original argument hinges on the assumption that these problems are rooted in genetic defects and treatable via genetic therapy.
E. The original argument pertains to common medical problems such as depression and not to "each human defect or sickness." Further, the original argument assumes that genetic therapy alone is sufficient to treat the problem while this answer simply states that all human defects or sickness can be traced in
part to (and not necessarily treated by) genetics.

---

Since C is going. A cannot go, leaving B as the second bookkeeper. To have three secretary, you cannot use E with C, leaving only D, F, G and H. If D is used, F and G are ruled out. Three is one and only one combination F, G and H with C and B.
The correct answer is (A).

---

See item #3 in the question which is (D and G have not been speaking terms for many month. They should not go together).
The answer is (B).

---

I is denied by the statement that some forms of mercury cause Hobson’s diseases.
II mentions the mercury in drinking water that is associated with industrial
pollution. It may be concluded that mercury may get into drinking water by some
other means. III alludes to the fact that this island has no industrial waste and yet
has a high incidence of this disease.
The correct answer is (E).