Is it not necessary for an ideal experiment to be repeated? Wouldn't the number of times the experiment is repeated affect the strength of causality?

#feedback venn diagrams (as used in past lessons) express these relationships more clearly than this convoluted 3-D bucket analogy.

I was getting confused with "always" indicating a necessary condition and "every time" indicating a sufficient condition. What helped me understand is using the phrases interchangeably:

"Roses always provide a stunning display of color"

can be rewritten as:

"Every time it is a rose, it provides a stunning display of color".

I'm not sure if this is a recommended strategy, but it helped me understand the difference between the two indicators.

Are there any other examples of questions with prescriptive conclusions? Also, would swapping "should" with "must" change the answer? I still don't see how AC D is correct because it doesn't specifically reference a precise comparison- if observing the impacts helps students learn, but it isn't a precise comparison then why would color paper be preferable over paint?

I may be overthinking what constitutes an argument, but why is question 1 an argument and not just a list of facts like this question from the previous lesson:

One method of dating the emergence of species is to compare the genetic material of related species. Scientists theorize that the more genetically similar two species are to each other, the more recently they diverged from a common ancestor. After comparing genetic material from giant pandas, red pandas, raccoons, coatis, and all seven bear species, scientists concluded that bears and raccoons diverged 30 to 50 million years ago. They further concluded that red pandas separated from the ancestor of today's raccoons and coatis a few million years later, some 10 million years before giant pandas diverged from the other bears.

For prompts like question 2, is it always assumed that an argument must be made by the author in first person? And in that case, would the following make sense if you omitted "scientists theorize that"?

Conclusion: Scientists theorize that the more genetically similar two species are to each other, the more recently they diverged from a common ancestor

Premise: After comparing genetic material from giant pandas, red pandas, raccoons, coatis, and all seven bear species, scientists concluded that bears and raccoons diverged 30 to 50 million years ago. They further concluded that red pandas separated from the ancestor of today's raccoons and coatis a few million years later, some 10 million years before giant pandas diverged from the other bears.

Wouldn't this just be a weak argument which requires the assumption that red pandas and raccoons are more genetically similar than other bears and raccoons?

Why can't routine non punishment of society's specific rules refer to a bunch of specific rules individually violated with impunity frequently enough to be collectively considered routine? i.e. if there were 100 specific rules and 100 violations with impunity, one violation per specific rule, would this not constitute routine non punishment?

Can someone help me break down the grammar for this sentence and explain why this interpretation is incorrect?

Is it not true that, accepting AC B as true, as a high-spending student decreases their spending their anxiety will at first decrease until they go below the threshold of moderate spending and then their anxiety will begin to INCREASE? The stimulus does not specify an overall increase in anxiety or an increase in their current level of anxiety, but rather that there will be no increase at all as a student reduces spending.

Should we assume that as long as one interpretation of the answer would strengthen the argument, then we can ignore all other interpretations and move on? #help

I'm pretty convinced AC D is also Fox News. Considering the way journalism works today, I would never assume that "debate over controversial issues" refers to article corrections, fact checking, or debates between journalist and editor. It is extremely common now for "newspapers" to report false claims to stir debate among viewers/readers, thus creating more engagement.