I appreciate this comment, because i felt the text's description of how A is challenging the stimulus' info is actually contradictory to the principle that RRE questions are about finding explanations that allow the stimulus' components to be true, yet reconciled.

I'm ignoring their explanation of A for the time being unless this principle later proves wrong.

I can't help but see how these lessons in logic and reasoning are inadvertently teaching ways to exploit this logic and deceive, as all good tobacco lawyers should

@ParmelieAndris I think some, most and all are covered in the previous "logic of intersecting sets" module.

I presume the negation of never is "not never" or in other words: "at least one/once".