I got it right in BR after I googled what "repudiate" meant.

@AlvinB I thought of it like this: If domesticating animals is much easier today, then many species that were "too hard" before might be domesticated now, weakening the conclusion that "most wild large mammal species in existence today either would be difficult to domesticate or would not be worth domesticating." For NA questions if you negate an answer choice and it destroys the argument, that is the necessary assumption. If domesticating animals are easier today, then it cannot be true that most wild large mammal species today would be difficult to domesticate.

Got it right originally, second guessed myself in BR. Anyone else have this issue?

This section is making me not want to pursue law school :)

I am really confused by the "let's review" portion. The "Most before all" argument DOES say that:

A -m-> B --> C

Therefore, A -m-> C

But in the "let's review" part of this lesson it says that:

A -m-> B --> C yields no valid conclusions via the chain.

Can someone explain this please?

@MorganSmith I'm not sure if this is how I am supposed to be doing it, but I use the BR to really think out my process without worrying about the timer. I thoroughly look again through the answers, I highlight the passage, and step-by-step think about the answer. If I still think it is the original answer I put down, that's fine. But after looking at it further, sometimes I realize "oh, it's actually this option."