@Kevin Lin Thank you for replying! That's a great point. I think I made the assumption that because drugs successfully treated those with aggravated back injuries, they must have been necessary, thus connecting back to the second claim that drugs are a necessary part of the treatment as noted in the stimulus. I still feel as though AC D is a more applied version of AC B, but I also kind of realized that AC B is the underlying principle and probably the better answer as a result.

#help I'm left unconvinced by any explanations of why AC D is incorrect. I ended up choosing AC B during the test and BR simply because it seemed to be the most straightforward of the two, but I feel as though I cannot substantiate a reason to eliminate AC D. If "Some back muscle injuries that have been aggravated by improper attempts at physical therapy, such as home massage, have been successfully treated with drugs", then those that need drugs (aka those that have been aggravated by improper attempts at PT) are those that receive drugs. I know that this idea of "some back muscle injuries" might cut down the subset being referred to, but the conclusion of the stimulus is simply that drugs are necessary for all those who receive them, and AC D would fit into that category. Those who receive them are the ones who have been aggravated by PT and thus need them. Maybe the only ones in this population of patients who need drugs are the ones that got messed up by PT. Doesn't seem like much of a stretch to me.

In fact, isn't AC D just a more applied version of the general principle outlined in AC B? Wouldn't that make it a better answer? Very confused.

Q1 is just plain wrong in the written explanation. Even if "It" could be defined to be a referential phrase, it is not at all referring to "keeping deep wounds free of bacteria". It is, in a sense, a "dummy" pronoun used to fill the gap of needing a subject for the sentence. It doesn't refer to anything, but rather is just a placeholder. Using JY's logic expressed in past explanations, replacing "It" with "keeping deep wounds free of bacteria" would yield this sentence: "Keeping deep wounds free of bacteria is difficult to keep deep wounds free of bacteria", which makes no sense. Also, "that" is another referential phrase that is not identified within Q1.

@brownga0294 But claims are not premises? Couldn't claims could also be conclusions? Thus, if the argument is made up of one premise and one conclusion, that does not exclude the possibility of it still being two claims. #help