Woudn't 3.1 have two premises? (1)"For the public's complaints about the public transport systems have eroded confidence in such systems," and (2)"for these systems are vital to urban lifestyle." I understand (2) builds off the information in 1, but 1 is a background of what is happening, and2 is a reflection on the importance of the system

. Which may overlap in terms of understanding how true the statement yet does seem to be distinct in terms of premises to reach the conclusion.

This is the same hurdle I face with the rest of the 3.# questions and 4.#

I immediately ruled out number A since it used the word "legally," and the text only states that CEO's are "bound, by the condition of their employment, to seek profits for the owners." How is this using the term "legally" correctly? Is "contractually obligated" and "legally" interchangeable here?

Haters gonna hate, Potatos gonna potat

#feedback I feel it would be helpful to also include what the valid form of the arguments are so that in the review we can have a quick way to reference a valid/invalid argument for example, and see how the test writers try and trick us.

Okay okay so my error here was that I took the conclusion hella out of context. What I mean was I chose (D) because if the conclusion is that "peeling wild potatoes makes them at least as safe to eat as unpeeled domesticated potatoes of the same size," then the term "safe to eat" means that there should be nothing else that makes the potato not "safe to eat." Safety is a pretty vague term so I though generalizing the fact that a potato does or does not have high levels of solanine in it and that it simply being not poisonious in respects to solanine does not equate with it being safe to eat period. BUt I think i was making the argument that P1 + p2 + Answer choice C = The conclusion, and if the conclusion was tbt then (D) also had to be true.