For those confused here is a another way of explaining it. For the 2nd step in the process, we are NOT comparing MOST with sorghum, because the claim never states how close MOST cultivars are with sorghum.

Therefore, we cannot center the comparative around Sorghum, because we don't know where MOST fits.

We only know that sorghum (first item) is closer related to some cultivars (quality compared) than MOST cultivars (second item)

1. Sorghum vs MOST

2. Centered around relation to SOME cultivars

3. Sorghum is more related

@tiba shlash I think something else that may help out is asking WHO/WHAT the sentence is about. We could remove opposition leaders and still have a sentence that makes sense.

We cannot remove attempts and have it still make as much sense. When we come across "backfire", we would ask "what will backfire?". It makes slightly less sense.

@MonicaAponte I don't think you can do this because then you would have to apply it to the "potential to cause injury" assumption. And take that as true.

@James Hague yes, and I almost look at the argument with a critical lens. "How can I attack this argument"? So when I read the initial argument, I immediately asked myself, "Okay, but what if someone wants a pet BECAUSE they are dangerous? Wouldn't that make it suitable?"

Isn't there an error in the video? The written statement states that Members of the DVC can access the fast pass. But the video point #1 states that they have access to the Genie+ system. Are those two different things? You can mess up an argument when you don't know the difference between a system and a specific app