The expression "all other members" is kinda unclear. Is it all other members who can't get Genie+ pass via the app, or all other members who have not offered propitiations to get the pass via the app. If it is the former, the argument is not valid, because we don't know if Genie pass can't be obtained through other means. If it is the latter, then the Genie pass part seems extraneous. The only relevant premises are 1.Some people in a club offered propitiation to M. 2. Others in that club prostrated in front of M. 3. Walt is in the club. 4. Walt did not prostrate in front of M. Conclusion: Walt offered propitiation to M.

I think, on one hand, it is helpful to break down the sentences in this detailed manner, but, on the other hand, I still find it more helpful to get the key words rather than just the core of the sentence. For instance, for "The formation of hurricanes that threaten the United States mainland is triggered by high atmospheric winds off the western coast of Africa," I would mentally recap the sentence as "hurricanes are triggered by winds from Africa," instead of just the core, "The formation is triggered." I think the concrete words give more info than abstract ones, even if the abstarct word is the grammatical core of the sentence. If I recap by extracting the core, then I will need a second step to actually get the gist of the sentence. 

My guess when I look at the stimulus, is that this could be a conclusion question or this could be a inference question. I think the inference would be that current law does not contain or is not exclusively made of breed-specific legislation. Or, it could be a conclusion question, in which case, it would be a paraphrase of "As a result, such breed-specific legislation could never effectively protect the public from vicious dogs."

I thought that even if people can be helped by taking melatonin, doesn't necessarily mean they are melatonin-deficient, they could have normal functioning pineal gland and normal production of melatonin, but extra melatonin would help with insomnia through other perspectives, for instance, extra melatonin makes a person sleepier. SO, I was thinking that the flaw is that increasing a the intake of a chemical to help a symptom doesn't necessarily indicate the deficiency of the chemical. So, my mind got stuck here and didn't realize there could be other more obvious flaws.

I wonder if anyone thought this way, and if what I thought could legit be a flaw.

subset membership--->superset membership, in NYC--->in USA