Wouldn't we be making an assumption that "radically modifying agricultural techniques" would be the same as "abandoning conventional agriculture"?

These parallel flaw questions are killing me - so far with parallel method of reasoning we have been taught to ignore the actual subject matter of each question. To get to the root and structure of the argument and identify the one most similar.

Now, these parallel flaw questions are asking basically the opposite. Identify and analyze each argument in it's entirety, locate the flaw, diagram and compare it to the passage, and select the correct one. I believe that the approach to these questions is miles different than the approach given to the parallel method of reasoning. Yes I may be stating the obvious, but just airing out my frustration lol.

Not sure if I am reading too deeply into making an assumption or not - but just because this argument presumes that "he quite probably adjusted his equations to generate the correct numbers for the perihelion advance." - does that make the argument cohesive enough to surround a rule or principle around? I guess what I mean to say is that this argument relies fully on the idea that Einstein adjusted his theory due to the advance, let's say, even though it's quite improbable, that he didn't - wouldn't that fully invalidate this argument, and therefore the principal? I understand that I am wrong , and that clearly option D is the correct choice, but I can't wrap my head around why. Any help?

Conclusion: forest fires are GOOD for forest and humans should not intervene.

Support for Conclusion: human intervention is BAD for forest.

How can the correct answer be: ALLOW human intervention???

(I know that I am wrong but this is my reasoning and why this question makes no sense - plz help!)

Commenting to highlight a pattern I believe may be relevant: On these SA questions, if I identify language similar to "usually, most of the time, occasionally, sometimes, etc." I immediately cross it out. 9 times out of 10 it is clear that the rule necessary to confirm the conclusion must deal in absolutes, it would not be sufficient in any circumstance for the rule to say "most of the time" or any relevant language to what I highlighted previously. If that language is used, then the "rule" can absolutely not be interpreted as true because a rule is only acceptable if it is binary, you either follow it or you don't.

Therefore on a question like this where 3/5 ACs use "usually", I can use POE to interpret the correct choice! Let me know if my observation is flawed please lol - I comment on these questions to reinforce my thinking - and if that thinking is flawed I'd love to know!

Quick question regarding the structure of these lessons: to this point in my LR study plan, whenever these lessons pop up that don't prompt me to actually "do" the question displayed, I always just watch J.Y. do the question all the way through and move on.

However, would it be more beneficial for me to actually attempt the question itself, and then watch the lesson?

In situations where I easily identify the correct answer under the average time, I find it difficult sitting through the videos explaining in detail why the correct answer is, in fact, correct.

Is there a mindset change I should have regarding this issue, or would I be crazy to skip to the next module?

I have a problem with continually mixing up my necessary and sufficient conditions - I think it stems from my urge to think of these sentences linearly - for example :

mastering conditional logic requires some amount of memorizing conditional indicators.

every bone in my body tells me that "mastering conditional logic" is the necessary condition, as it is a direct result of "memorizing conditional indicators" this can usually be tamed by translating to Lawgic using indicator words, but without the indicator words available, I need to restructure my thought process - does anyone have any tips on how to avoid thinking in these terms?