roysim - not sure I understand your question but I think I know what you're asking. While there is overlap, the answer justifications (and format) are clearer and better describe WHY the other answers are incorrect (similar to the way members post on these forums).
The format goes something like (for CR):
<b>Situation:</b> Since the wholesale price of raw cotton has fallen significantly, the retail price of cotton clothing in stores will inevitably fall.
<b>Reasoning:</b> <i>What point weakens this argument?</i> Consider carefully the difference between the two products for which costs are being compared: cotton and cloth. This argument assumes that lower wholesale prices for a raw product must necessarily result in lower retail prices for a processed product...
<b>A - Correct.</b> This statement properly identifies a weakness in the argument.
B - The statement is out of scope.
C - The author's conclusion is not based on this assumption.
D - This actually strengthens the author's argument.
E - The argument has already taken this statement into account and it is not weakened by this statement.
As you can tell, the format is 10x better than the format in the 10th edition. I've been quite pleased with the purchase and have been able to understand the reasoning behind CR and RC questions a lot better. Besides, sometimes it's just nice to start with a new book!