@kadenjwagner2003931 great example thank you :)

sufficient-necessary relationships work is the following: If I'm in New York, that's sufficient to know I'm in the U.S., but being in the U.S. does not mean I'm in New York. Being in New York is sufficient to know I'm in the U.S., and being in the U.S. is necessary to be in New York.

Hi y'all! :)

Had a question on #11 for the Australia ecosystem one.

We determined that the main conclusion (MC) was "This is probably because of the sparseness of Australia's ecosystem" and the sub-conclusion (SC) "thus carnivorous mammals are at a disadvantage in ecosystems in which there is relatively little food."

We eliminate answer choices A) B) and D).

C) is the correct answer as it has the MC

technically I saw that E) almost has the correct answer since it mentions that Australia's ecosystems are sparse.

But is what makes C) binding and ultimately 100% bulletproof correct and E wrong is because E) has the MAIN CONCLUSION AND SUB-CONCLUSION plus doesn't match the exact language of the MC with "probably?"

Is C) absolutely correct and a bulletproof answer because it has the MC + Exact MC wording of "probably"?

So in a in a Phenomenon Hypothesis question where there are two equally attractive answers asking you to determine the main conclusion.. do you always pick the one that has...

the MAIN CONCLUSION + CONTEXT + EXACT WORDING OF MC over one that has the MAIN CONCLUSION + SUB CONCLUSION?

So does the correct answer in a Phenomenon Hypothesis never have the MAIN CONCLUSION (MC) together with the Sub (SC)?

Just want to fully understand and consolidate this reasoning. Thank you sm! :)