@shrooots same honestly I feel like it makes you overthink the problem

Can someone explain the gap between B and C? I am having a hard time on this question. My understanding is that the gap from B to C is saying that more gov control implies that this control is in the form of protection from a military invasion, but in reality that is only one form that this control can take??? Therefore B could cause C???

I feel like if you took Psychology in college, this is just extra info that you already know. If anyone needs help understanding this, I can do my best to explain it for you.

Is the word "corresponding" only being used to describe the correlational relationship between the ideas expressed in the causal claim? It is throwing me for a loop. I also interpret this to be a negative correlation. Any thoughts on this?

Can someone explain this? I am still confused. Maybe I am just overthinking the question idk. My understanding is that A is correct because planes without the technology do not recieve evasive action calls, But since planes with the technology do recieve these calls AND they do not pose risk, then A makes the conclusion stronger??

Why is "fewer than half" not expressed as "some"? Is there a more percise way of expressing it?

I am still confused on why this is invalid. My understanding is that because SAS is sufficient, she could be doing other things that are not SAS and still satisfy AAF? Since the conclusion is based on the sufficient condition, which cannot always be true, therefor the conclusion is invalid?? Could someone explain this a little more?

How can I better understand when the word "only" is being used as a group 1 indicator vs. a group 2 indicator word? It is throwing me off as I try to do the skill builder for chained conditionals.