We call this question stem is sufficient assumptions. Let's read it together.

Atron's conclusion follows logically if which one of the following is assumed.

So what they're asking us to do is they're asking us to presume one of these five answer choices.

They're saying if we presume it, if we assume it, if we take it in other words and bring it into the argument,

then the conclusion follows logically. So you have to really understand what it means for the conclusion to follow logically.

And a lot of, you know, at least one answer choice here, wrong one, is trading on your confusion about what this phrase means.

We're not just trying to make this argument stronger, better. We're trying to make it perfect.

We're trying to make it logically valid. Right. And you just you kind of just have to know this.

You know, so if you don't if you don't know it, then, well, you know, I'm telling you right now.

But if you just didn't know it, then of course, there's really sort of no chance of you getting this right.

And in further, the ants were bringing food. So what he observed is my crude rendition of an ant colony.

And here's an ant carrying some particles. Right. So these are the particles that he's carrying on his back.

And we don't we don't actually know what these particles are, but we watch the ant carry it from this colony over to this other colony.

And the H or rather is etymologist entomologist is inferring that. Oh, this must be food.

Then the part of us. But then after further research, we revealed that the ants were emptying their own colonies dumping site.

So where this stuff came from, where this particle came from was was a dumping site.

So then now that the conclusion says that early entomologist was wrong.

So two things we always, always have to do for sufficient assumption questions.

So it's not really limited to just sufficient assumptions questions.

But two things we always have to do is separate clearly your premises from your conclusion,

because otherwise you don't really know which direction you're going.

What's going on now is that the premises sort of support the conclusion, but not all the way.

And we're trying to make the premises in conjunction with the correct answer choice and make this conclusion inevitable.

If the premises are true, plus the right answer choice is true, then the conclusion must be true.

That's what follows logically means. So that's one.

The other is you have to in our grammar lessons, we use this thing called referential phrasing.

And here the conclusion uses that early entomologist was wrong.

You have to make sure you push this back to what they're talking about.

What does that mean they're wrong? They're wrong about what?

I see the early entomologist observed ants carrying particles, and then they infer that it's food.

So now that they're wrong, that means the actual conclusion, if you expand it out, it says the ants weren't carrying food.

Because it's from a dumping site. That's our premise. That's supposedly so.

But as you can see, this current argument, this premise doesn't make this conclusion a must be true.

Why can't particles from a dumping site be food?

We're making that assumption that particles from dumping sites can't be food.

That's exactly what we have to say.

In order for this argument to work, we have to insert the additional premise that if it's from a dumping site, then it cannot be food.

And you see, with this additional premise, then this argument becomes valid.

This particle is from a dumping site, therefore this particle can't be food.

So yeah, perfectly valid argument. When these two statements are true, this statement must also be true.

And that's exactly what makes the answer to choice C correct.

Ant dumping sites do not contain particles that could be used as food.

There you go. If it's from the dumping site, it's not food.

If you see and understand the structure of a sufficient assumption question to be like this, then you'll bypass a lot of the traps that they lay out for you.

Otherwise, take a look at answer to choice E.

And you're thinking, oh, this is a great answer to choice.

Because especially if you go through all these, you're at answer to choice E.

Psychologically, you're a little bit panicking.

And we're trying to say that entomologist was wrong.

And then E tells you that he himself even retracted his conclusion.

But that doesn't mean that he's wrong.

You know, like imagine if, I don't know, like Copernicus proposed that the sun is in the center of our solar system.

And then later he retracted that statement. Does that mean he's wrong?

You see, that doesn't mean he's wrong.

Or I should say his original statement was wrong. His retraction is wrong.

So that's what makes E tricky.

But of course, you wouldn't even be tempted by this if you knew that this is the structure of a sufficient assumption question.

That's great. You know, that's fine.

So that doesn't help our premises make our conclusion. It must be true.

B says there is only weak evidence for the view that ants have capacity to make use of objects.

Yes, gifts. I don't care that the evidence for this view is weak.

It just doesn't do what we're trying to do.

Okay, what does that have to do with anything?

Again, this answer is making you think, oh, well, if it's food, they definitely would have carried it in.

So if they didn't carry it in, that means it's not food.

But that's just not true.

They never carried it in because, I don't know, because they ate it on the spot.

It's such delicious food that they couldn't wait to carry it back home.

They just ate it as soon as it was given to them.

But yeah, whatever. You don't have to go through any of that stuff if you just know that this is what you're supposed to do.