Hey I am interested! Although I am in maryland, I am just an hour ahead of your time. Not sure how to private message but feel free to private message me.

Many reasons why A is wrong, the language is literally so ambiguous. But to understand why its not the answer lets look first at the passage. This is a flawed type. 

Basically reasoning saying "ad campaign is the cause of low sales and new prod sales poor (this effect). (mind u reasoning, u kinda have to look at like boss of the conlusion, and this reasoning is wht we gotta get at).

Assum: correlation-causation. So we know to weaken we can show effect dont follow from cause, vice versa, OR 3rd factor, etc... which is also same formula for flaw but just using it to show author assum flaw. 

FYI dont get stuck on the direct lang cuz its not worth it, its gnna complicate you so start understanding in patterns this will help get it. If you are getting frustrated, its cause you are in the phase of being hung up on your ex vibes. Atleast this is what helped me get better, which is, let the lsat break you lol and get over it. 

Ans A reworded normally: reasoning assumes that the effect of low sales wouldn't have happened if the cause of CAC. 

Ans B reworded normally: ignores 3rd factor basically.

A is wrong because....like tbh actually theres no really option where you can say no effect no cause to show flaw of jumping from correlation to causation. If you say that its like affirming it more. Also like yeah author might be assuming this (is what your thinking), but dont pick ans like this because the author is talking abt cause effect future tense vibes, and also they talking abt it not being effective so this option is like not serving. 

B right because literally its saying third factor.... helloooo... u ignoring it marketting consultant?!?!?!? This option hits at home, while B is kind of like the devil that makes you try and enter through the window than just using the door. Hope this helps lol!

Okay guys, let me just tell you the trick to crack NA questions.

First step, cut off the context sentence, ignore it, throw it away whatever but obviously know it so you get the gist (so basically for this, after reading first sentence, it goes bye bye)

Second, now we see the conclusion okay, thats it. Blah blah words, FIND THE KEY WORD/PHRASE/ TOPIC in this sentence. "ooo okay humans activity stands out and wait i like effect on weather part too" thats it now move along to second sentence.

Third step, okay finally support, this is where i am going to find that unique idea that i picked up in conclusions,and whats the relation? Well basically in this support premise your going to find its step-bro. NOW BACK TO READING - Blah blah words, WAIT, the sentence doesnt sound supportive enough, giving toxic, but why? OOO its cause the word NATURALLY stands out to me.

-Why does naturally stand out to me? Well in the conlusion I picked up my words "Humans" and "Effect on weather". Everything else in the support kind of in the vibe but then bhoom it says NATURALLY (few 7day naturally occuring cycles not strong enough to effect"). So like now we have these two contestants that are like in a boxing ring.

Disclaimer - I use this trick cuz need to save time and honestly i realized for me atleast, in NA questions you dont really have to care about all the words like you would in MSS etc (kind of like main conclusion questions, where you just find the conclusion and move on)

OKAY SOOO NOW ANSWER TIME, we need sum necessary to make sure the conclusion holds. If we have our conclusion thats basically saying YEAH MAN ONLY HUMANS ACTIVITY IS THE REASON THATS IT, but then we have a support saying YEAH YOU RIGHT BECAUSE pshhh we know that 7day cycle (which also hint of why you wouldnt pick on this word is cuz like its mentioned a gazzilion times before like its a connector, like yeah obviously this is the main point of praadox, but if you keep doing NA you know this type of word is going to be mentioned in most of the ans so whats the next word tha tmight not... so FOCUS ON NATURALLY) that occurs NATURALLY NATURALLY NATURALLY NATURALLY, (not tiffany not sofia not brock), NATURALLY, they dont do crap effect so foshoooo its HUMAN ACTIVITY thats the issue.

------Okay so now your like wait why not tiffany not sofia not brock, how is it just NATURALLY? like just cuz?whats the full story? ----------- THERE YOU GO ANSWER WOOHOO. THATS WHY we look at answer E and see oh WITH natural cause (and obiously as predicted we have 7day in this sentence), has to have seven day cycle. (uhh yeah duhh thats what the context mentioned and conlusion assuming for humans).

And obviously negated we see it says ok yeah if weather pattern with naturla cause has seven day cycle, then ACTUALLY that cause dont even have to be 7day cycle. ----bruh thsi deff break the argument cause author argueing theres only this 7day natural cause type oposition. BUT NOT WE GOT 3 4 5 6 OR EVEN 7?!?!!?