For those still confused, at the beginning of the passage (P2) they associate "traditional" with "long standing" continuity and regularity. Since, the passage, is asking about the 1986 (where FWS disagreed), it's referring to that OG definition from (P2).

Idk if it's just me but in the curriculum it says that this is a Stated question not an Implied question from the author's perspective.

After reading the review box at the bottom of the page the simplest way to understand is by treating the position of the question stem as the conclusion of an argument:

CONCLUSION: "LHB was limited to Earth and the Moon"

Answer D: Weakens the conclusion

• Rocks didn't come from Mars, BUT could have come from other planets in the inner solar system such as Jupiter or Neptune. Therefore, LHB could be found BEYOND the Earth and Moon. (this doesn't SUPPORT the conclusion, it WEAKENS it)

Answer A: Supports the conclusion

• Due to the lack of evidence of rocks coming from Mars, this supports the idea that LHB was limited to Earth and the Moon.

IMPORTANT NOTE: Weakening a conclusion is not the same as supporting it.

So whenever an author is supporting a perspective in the passage, the main point will be "there is support for the view.... (the perspective the author supports)."

The easiest way to approach this question was to focus on the conclusion. The conclusion of the stimulus was "if NOT Y then X," so you have to find a conclusion that only has 1 "not" and in the sufficient condition .

A is wrong because it says "not" 2x

B is flagged because it has 1 "not"

C is wrong because it says "not" 2x

D is wrong because although it has 1 "not" it's in the necessary condition.

E is flagged because it has 1 "not"

Then you analyze more in detail to get to the correct answer E.

Here's a short simplified explanation. The argument structure is this:

A -> B <- C

C -> A (invalid - this is the flaw)

Look for an AC that describes this flaw. I couldn't find it until I realized THEY HID THE FLAW IN ITS CONTRAPOSITIVE FORM. You had to take the contrapositive of the flaw like this:

C -> A (the flaw)

/A -> /C (contrapositive)

And then answer E makes more sense.

Side Note: If none of the ACs seem to match the flaw, try taking the contrapositive of the flawed conditional and look at the answer choices again.

I finally understand the logic here. The argument states:

A → B

¬A → ¬B (invalid inference)

I understood that ¬A → ¬B was an invalid form, but I didn't understand how this connected to the correct answer saying that the argument treats a sufficient condition as a necessary condition.

The key was taking the contrapositive of the invalid inference:

¬A → ¬B

B → A (same claim, expressed as its contrapositive)

Now the flaw became clear. B → A means that A is necessary for B, whereas the original premise A → B establishes that A is sufficient for B.   

My mistake was thinking that because A is part of the antecedent in ¬A → ¬B, A must still be the sufficient condition. But once you take the contrapositive of ¬A → ¬B, you can see that the argument is actually treating A as necessary for B.  

So, when you see a conditional with negations, you should first take the contrapositive to see what relationship it is actually asserting, and then match it to the answer choices.

Why are we getting tested in LEVEL 5's while learning a new question type this is so frustrating

I'm shocked by the level of difficulty considering i got it right within the time limit. But for those that didn't, in simple terms, answers B-D are all in some way either supporting the conclusion or irrelevant. Answer A is the only one that actually challenges the conclusion.

I'd say an important takeaway from this question is...

Just because someone said something doesn't mean the content of what they said was true but rather that the fact that they said it is what's true.

Ex: (B) Scientists claim that aliens are real.

• What is true about this answer choice is that scientists made the claim.

• What we CANNOT assume is that aliens are real.

A simple way to put it is when using the Process of Elimination strategy for this question:

"Many" is defined as more than "some." It's NOT equivalent to "most" but can be considered equivalent to "some."

(C) At least one -> "some" (correct)

(E) Most (incorrect)

For those wondering why they got Q3 wrong it's because it starts with "The only" which is actually a sufficient indicator. If it started as "Only" then it would have been a necessary indicator. Hope that helps :)