As someone who is coming back to review this a month and a half later... this is much easier to grasp. Don't stress too much if you don't understand it, keep going with the CC and after a month of drilling questions you can come back to this.

Would you also be able to say:

NYC and PP -> /FT

NYC and FT -> /PP

OR in necessary = DON'T SPLIT

AND in necessary = You can split

OR in sufficient = You can split

AND in sufficient = DON'T SPLIT

(I hope this is right...correct me if needed)

In these types of correlation-causation flaw questions, is the right AC almost always that it fails to conclude that the causation is just flipped? For example, if X correlates with Y, X causes Y. The flaw would be that it fails to consider that Y may cause X.

Or can some answers also be that it fails to consider other factors that may cause, Y, so it really just depends on the question stem?