great minds think alike.

fools rarely differ

Fails to specify we are only taking the first sentence of the example & translating it to lawgic. I took the 1st sentence as a Suff. & the 2nd sentence as a Nec. The explanation provided here along with the last lesson is obtuse. For future students: they mean A is bird & B is migration only for the first sentence, they do not translate the other two sentences in this explanation whatsoever.

@juliagvrooman is only not a suff indicator?

'No' is a 'then' or necessary cd

'Unless' translates to 'if not' or a suff. cd

So it would translate to:

Brave -> Gryffindor

This argument would then logically follow. We were taught that unless is a suff & no is a necessary cd. How come that is no longer the case for this example?

Sometimes I doubt the obvious answer. I came to the proper conclusion by process of elimination. The Fault is an Unknown. It is a maybe. Having an answer would directly strengthen their argument.

The question doesn't ask what weakens the argument, it asks what argumentation is being used. I took this as an assumption, yet, it seems as though the answer & its explanation provide B as correct because it WEAKENS the argument. This is not what we are being asked to accomplish. E strengthens the argument, & D provides additional explanation, which are most in line with a support of argumentation.

I am not saying the answer B is wrong. I am saying the question they asked is. Unless someone can properly explain the semantics I cannot understand how they'd come to the conclusion that this is a valid question.