For number 5, I said kittens adopted ←s→ homes with children. Is that the same as kitten —m→ /home-children? On the module for "Few" it said Few meant "some are" and "most are not". x←s→y. and x—m→ /y

Did anyone else think "otherwise" is a negative referential towards those in favor of parliament's plan when it came to question 2? I guess it's the same thing as the belief that the president clearly (did not) act in the best interests of the nation.

With Question 1, I thought that the very first sentence was the conclusion. I felt like the conclusion was that fragments of eggshells were helping obtain accurate dates (either 200,000 or 1 million years old), and I labeled it as the argument's conclusion in error. :( 4/5

I think the Trash Bin was the weakest because it offered a lot of details but not enough support or evidence to come to its conclusion (the cat was intentionally guilty). The trash bin could have fallen due to another circumstance, and the cat happened upon it. The Tiger argument came second to the Disney Club argument because, though it had a relevant premise to support its overall conclusion, it didn't have as much or even half as much of the support Disney's had. They were both good, one just had more layers that strengthened it compared to the other I believe.