The conclusion in the argument is about the general safety of the potatoes whereas the rest of the argument (P and Ctx) is restricted to solanine. Yet (C) doesn't address that seemingly part-to-whole gap. Does that matter for this question? #help

This is how I mapped it:

P1: E+A Sub -> GES

P2: GES -> Do it

Intermediary: E+A Sub -> Do it

C: PNSC -> Do it

---

In this case, shouldn't the sufficient assumption be PNSC -> E+A Sub? (E) seems like the sufficiency / necessity confused version of what I derived from mapping.

Where did I go wrong?

#help

This particular question stem asks for an AC that doesn't help undermine the hypothesis, but if this were a more typical weakening question like "weakens the argument EXCEPT," could we still get rid of (E)?

(E) doesn't seem to weaken the P to C argument structure, but rather go directly after the hypothesis.

#help

Shooter gang Chloe, I think I love you.