I can't parse out or understand the assumption being made in this question below:

Paleontologist: It is widely, but falsely, held that life began in the ocean and did not exist on land until half a billion years ago.

The answer is D but I do not understand why

Admin Note: Deleted the question and answer choices because it is against our Forum Rules to post the entire question and answer choices on the forum.

This was not a fun flaw question.

At its absolute most basic, the stimulus says:

Conclusion: Not X.

Premise: If we BELIEVED X -> Y.

The assumption here is subtle: Since not Y, not X.

But why on Earth would we make that jump based on the single premise we are given? Also, notice we are drawing a conclusion based on what would be true if we BELIEVED otherwise, not if the case it WERE otherwise.

Answers:

A. A true belief (X) can have bad consequences (maybe, not Y). In other words, the author is failing to consider the possibility that X -> not Y. If this is true, the argument doesn´t work.

B. The author establishes one claim to not be true, but where is the other???

C. Irrelevant, there are no motives mentioned.

D. No implication that the most negative outcome must occur.

E. There is no group of individuals being compared to another.

wanting to get into the 160s what can be done to reach that score

This is not really helping me to diagnose weaknesses: I got 7/7 in one 4-star Law RC and missed 2 on a much easier Law RC on the same Pt.

AND: the harder one was the final section of the RC and the final section of the test so in theory I should have been more tired. So I can rule that out as a possible explanation.

Not really a question; it's just kind of mystifying!