@SamuelBates Video + text are not a convinving explanation of the question !

Also, when did we become experts on the definition of "human cognition"? how does a history book not classify as human cognition? Especially when the question heavily hints at the process of writting the book through a given perspective.

If this question had a context in the beginning that stated omething along the lines of: "Some argue that a single momentary perception can be enough to determine a comprehensive understanding. But... [rest of the question]

Then A would be correct, i presume? because you are attacking a "piece of reasoning" present in the context, and then extrapolating with analogy that the "piece of reasoning" is also incorrect in some other application.

The original stim, in a vaccum, does not say that any "piece of reasoning is incorrect". The "one cannot frame" is merely a conclusion, I assumed that this was directed towards someone else who argued against this point.

A dreadfull and pedantic question. Been sitting here for 45 minutes and still dont understand the logic. Solution is vastly unsatisfying. 0/10. Moving on.

If something is harmful to something else, preventing it can either cause progress, or have no effect whatsoever.

So: A doesn´t totally reinforce the arguments assumption.

ARGUMENT´S ASSUMPTION:

preventing X -> is conducive to Y

AND ANSWER (A) STATES:

that X -> causes harm to Y,

THIS DOESN´T RULE OUT THE POSSIBILITY OF:

preventing X -> has no effect on Y. (preventing Major incidents of scientific fraud has no effect on progress)

So the assumption that the argument uses is only slightly strengthened, not totally. I see no other way of doing this question besides a dubious POE. if anyone can clarify it would be greatly appreciated !

When the question states: "...many people would do so, which would improve their health", how do we justify that this presents an embedded necessary condition? Why is the interpretation of: (listed -> easier -> people <-s-> limit -> improve) flawed in this case? If its because were talking about a hipothetical, whats logic that tells us we have to make it an embedded condition?

@SamuelBates Nevermind, I think I see my mistake. "... Any pokemon that doesnt reach its full potential must have avoided training". The negation to "avoided training" is simply: "not avoided training". So any amount of training is a sufficient condition for reaching full potential. So we can say that /avoided training = well trained, in this context because being well trained will always result in not having avoided training.

Regarding question 2. "... only well trained pocemon are capable of evolving" (therefore evolve -> well trained. This is very clear). However, "Any pokemon that doesnt reach its full potential must have avoided training." (/full potential -> avoided training). I dont understand why we assume that the negated version of "avoided training" is well trained. After all, the pokemon could be somewhat trained or badly trained. Well trained is not the only option here. I believe the question is confusing negation with opposition: the same error that was highlighted in a previous module. I understand that according to the video explanation this is the most useful way to interpret the conditional, but I just can´t see the logic behind this. Can anyone explain? Thanks