The advice to count the number of all/most/some claims before the conclusion just saved my life.

This is breaking my understanding. How can I identify SA/NA confusion now? Is this only for causal logic? Do I need the "only if, if/then" phrases for it to be SA/NA confusion?

Even though I got this question right, it was tricky for me and took 8 minutes because of the conflicting definitions of "contemporary." When used as an adjective, the word has two meanings. One means "occurring at the same time," while the other means "occurring in the present." This is confusing because it's not clear which definition is being relied on. Usually, one will use "contemporary" to discriminate against "modern," which was one assumption I made. So I couldn't easily tell if "the homo sapiens ancestors of contemporary humans" meant the ancestors of humans contemporary with Neanderthals or the ancestors of modern humans who lived contemporarily with Neanderthals. It's still hard to wrap my head around looking back at the question and answers. It's my belief that there would be a strong argument for striking this question from the grading scale due to this equivocation of definitions.