C is correct because it weakens an alternative explanation which in this case was that "there could be ppl who already suffer with insomnia that travel internationally. C weakens this by saying "those ppl (who already suffer with insomnia) are NO MORE LIKELY to travel internationally." Basically stating that the alternative explanation isn't important and the argument doesn't rely on it.

Stimulus: International Travel -> Insomnia

Alternative Explanation: Insomnia -> International Travel

C: People with insomnia are NO MORE LIKELY to -X-> travel internationally

This one was tough but using POE helped.

• C - Too Broad (total # of ppl; doesn't specify older or younger)

• D - Wrong (more ppl moved in than move out; no mention of age)

• E - Irrelevant (surrounding regions)

Now to distinguish between A and B it's important to note that one way to Strengthen an argument is to make an alternative explanation LESS plausible (aka weaken the alternative explanation).

• In this case, the alternate explanation is that there were FEWER young ppl which is what B introduces.

  • NOTE: Even simply introducing an alternative explanation can WEAKEN an argument. (So B weakens the argument)

• Whereas A weakens this alternative explanation by saying that there were actually MORE young ppl.

Hopefully this helps.

Logical Translation:

Capable -> ((PI or $500) -> report)

(embedded conditional)

Capable AND (PI or 500) -> report

/report

------------------------

/report -> /(capable and (PI or $500))  

(contrapositve)

DE MORGAN’S LAW:

/report -> (/capable or /(PI or $500))

Look for an AC that either says:

(PI or $500) -> /capable

OR

Capable -> /(PI or $500)

To simplify, the hypothesis in the stimulus is only comparing a (singular) student to ONESELF not to other students.

• Answers A, D, and E all compare studentS who studied more vs. OTHER studentS who studied less which is why they're wrong. (student is NOT being compared to oneself)

• B is just irrelevant.

• C is the only answer choice that talks about ONE student which is why it's correct. ("the more a (singular) student studied, the better THEIR OWN grade would be")

Hello it's me from the future. Just a PSA to all future students because I didn't know this at the time and idk if it was obvious back then but these 10 flaws don't just apply to the Flaw question type. It's also applicable to other question types that are part of the "Argument Family" (ex: Strengthen, Weaken, SA, NA, etc).

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 :)