Here I'll answer this for you since I just took PT59 yesterday.
#16
The evidence: A genetic mutation lowers levels of the enzyme C which reduces a person's ability to ward off periodiontitis. C eliminates infections in the mouth so its seemingly useful for people. Sucks to have that genetic mutation right? No! Scientists are developing ways to return it to normal levels.
Conclusion: We will be able to eliminate periodontitis.
Problem: Who says that this genetic mutation and this particular enzyme are the sole cause of periodontitis?
E: Bridges the gap between the evidence and conclusion by showing that after restoring C's level back to normal, the person wont suffer from periodontitis anymore. If negated, and people whose C level has been returned to normal WILL SUFFER from periodontitis, then the arguments conclusion that periodontotis has been eliminated would be completely destroyed.
D in my mind is wrong for a few reasons. First of all, we aren't really concerned with people who do not have the genetic mutation. Secondly, we are interested in the effects of returning the level of C to normal and whether or not doing so would elimiante periodontitis. D just seems irrelevant to me. Persons who don't have the mutation do not get gum disease. Cool? Good for them! We are concerned with the people who do have the mutation, who do have the reduced level of C, and who do have the disease. We want to know whether or not after returning their levels to normal if they will still have the disease or if they will be alright.
B, funny you mention it, is completely wrong
It's actually the one I put a complete X through, meaning to not even look back it. How does the argument say the genetic mutation is the only cause of the decreaesd level? It just states a general fact: people with this mutation have lower levels of C-->P. Somone who drinks too much soda can lower their level of C and have gum disease and that would not be at odds with the stimulus. Those soda drinkers might empathize with the genetic mutants.
As for 24, we know 18th century european aesthetics provided a good theory of art or whatever makes art. Then in the 1960s these rebels were like screw that, the 18th century concept of art is stupid i'm going to paint this way, their work turns out to be quite beautiful but doesn't fit into that neat "18th century aestethic theory" so the author concludes from that that there can be no complete theory of aesthetics? Why? Maybe we can expand the concept of what is art? That's what E is saying.
As for B, it just seems irrelevant to me. who cares if their knowledge was guided by 18th century aesthetic theory? the argument says what they did was outside the boudns of the theory, so even if they were guided by the theory, what they produced was outside the theory. the real issue is whether or not that theory is the say all of what constitutes art.
