i got caught up identifying conditions that should've been kicked up to the domain.

my read is that "the only" time it's acceptable to "offer experimental treatments for a disease to patients who suffer from extreme symptoms of that disease" is in the case where you "assume there is a reasonable chance for a cure."

i diagrammed like this:

acceptable to offer > assume reasonable chance for a cure

_____

acceptable > extreme symptoms

the conclusion has nothing to do with a "reasonable chance for a cure," and so because that's how i based my diagramming, when i was analyzing the the argument in totality, i thought the flaw was that there was an unwarranted assumption for the acceptability to offer treatment for people with extreme symptoms, which led me to B, since the /worth doesn't have an effect on /test drive based on the argument.

i should've diagrammed:

domain: reasonable chance for cure

extreme symptoms > acceptable to offer

___

/extreme symptoms > / acceptable to offer

i could've avoided this by looking at the conclusion first, and then deciding what to use to draw the lawgic

@kristensu68 same with A, lol

@CeciliaBurton1 retweet

@hannahhuynh thanks so much for this - to write it out for myself and others:

in the stimulus, the conclusion is a contrapositive of a premise. In order to guarantee that the stimulus's conclusion is true based on the support, look for the AC that has the sufficient condition of the premise's contrapositive.

I'm gonna need to think of the phrasing as "strictly necessary"

so is "filthy rich" a member of rich? or is it also member for the negation of rich?

@FultonHoover yeah - look at the grammar; "those surveyed" is referring back to the recent poll, not a separate survey