Summary
Most mines that Moradco operates in the province of Velyena have never violated environmental regulations. Every gold mine Moradco operates has at some time violated environmental regulations.
Notable Valid Inferences
Most of the mines Moradco operates in Velyena are not gold mines.
A
Moradco operates more mines in Velyena than any other company operates there.
Could be false. We don’t have any information in the stimulus about the total number of mines to make this comparison. Our conditions are restricted to the proportion of mines that have or have not violated environmental regulations.
B
The total number of gold mines that Moradco operates is larger than the total number of mines it operates in Velyena.
Could be false. We don’t have any information in the stimulus about the total number of mines to make this comparison. Our conditions are restricted to the proportion of mines that have or have not violated environmental regulations.
C
Most of the gold mines that Moradco operates are not located in Velyena.
Could be false. We don’t have any information in the stimulus about the total number of mines Moradco operates to make this statement. We cannot assume that just because most mines in Velyena have not violated environmental regulations that most mines are not located there.
D
Most of the mines that Moradco operates in Velyena are not gold mines.
Must be true. As shown below, we can take the contrapositive of the last statement in the stimulus which tells us that if a mine has never violated environmental regulations, then that mine is not a gold mine. 
E
Most of the mines that Moradco operates throughout the world are not gold mines.
Could be false. We don’t have any information in the stimulus about the number of mines Moradco operates outside of the province of Velyena. It is possible that most of Moradco’s mines are in Velyena.
Summarize Argument
The editor concludes that the city’s claim about its new recycling program are absurd. This is because the same overall volume of recyclables will be collected, just over a greater number of collections.
Notable Assumptions
For the city’s claim to be absurd, the editor must assume that there could be no other benefits to the new collection schedule besides increasing the overall volume of recyclables collected. Since that volume will stay the same, the editor can’t see how the collection cycle could possibly be beneficial.
A
The cost of collecting and disposing of general trash has been less than the cost of collecting and disposing of recyclables, and this is still likely to be the case under the new recycling program.
We don’t care about general trash. We need to know whether the new recycling program will live up to the city’s claim.
B
Even if the volume of collected recyclables increases, that increase might not be enough to make the recycling program cost effective.
The city never claims the program will hit some arbitrary threshold of “cost effective.” It simply claims the program will be more cost effective.
C
Because the volume of recyclables people accumulate during a week is less than what they accumulate during two weeks, the city expects a recyclables pickup to take less time under the new program.
While a pickup will take less time, we have no idea how long two pickups every two weeks will take versus one pickup every two weeks. The author’s argument remains intact if those two pickups together take as long, or longer, than the single biweekly pickup.
D
A weekly schedule for recyclables pickup is substantially easier for people to follow and adhere to than is a schedule of pickups every other week.
While the overall volume will stay the same, people are more likely to put out their recyclables on a weekly schedule. Thus, the city will collect and sell more recyclables than before.
E
Because of the increase in the number of pickups under the new program, the amount charged by the contractor that collects the city’s recyclables will increase significantly.
This strengthens the author’s argument. The new recycling program won’t just be the same as before—it’ll be even more expensive.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that people’s well-intentioned attempts to solve their friends’ marital problems are usually unjustified. In support, the author explains that these attempts usually don’t work, and instead just cause resentment.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that there’s a link between a well-intentioned attempt to solve a problem being ineffectual and causing resentment, and whether that attempt was justified.
A
One should get involved in other people’s problems only with the intention of producing the best overall consequences.
This is irrelevant, because the domain of the argument is already limited to well-intentioned attempts. This doesn’t tell us anything about why such an attempt could be unjustified.
B
Interpersonal relations should be conducted in accordance with doing whatever is right, regardless of the consequences.
This is irrelevant. The author never mentions what kinds of actions are “right,” only what’s “justified.” This doesn’t help us with justification at all.
C
Good intentions are the only legitimate grounds on which to attempt to resolve the marital problems of friends.
This still doesn’t help us with the element of justification, and so doesn’t strengthen the argument.
D
The intentions of an action are irrelevant to whether or not that action is justified.
This doesn’t strengthen because it still doesn’t tell us what contributes to an action being justified. Intentions are irrelevant, great, but we still don’t know how an action being ineffectual and causing resentment cause it to be unjustified.
E
No actions based on good intentions are justified unless they also result in success.
This affirms the author’s assumption that a well-intentioned action being ineffectual makes that action unjustified, and so strengthens the argument.