This was really helpful as a review of the question types in LR. Thank you!

@Daisy228 the preceding clause of "many editorialists criticize these attacks" should indicate that the author is still talking about the "attacks" rather than the politicians when stating "voters pay them scant attention".

I'm confused on what makes something an argument based on the definition of support, which is one claim being true increases the likelihood of the other to also be true. What if in this argument, the conclusion claim was instead: "Walt has never been to the Magical Kingdom?" If all the premises are true, it doesnt neccessitate the fact that Walt has NEVER been to the Magical Kingdom, but it does logically increase the likelihood of him never being there because he's never kneeled at Goofy's altar? Would this still be an argument just with very weak support? What if the conclusion was worded as "Walt has probably never been to the Magical Kingdom?"