https://www.sfu.ca/~swartz/conditions1.htm

I read a lot of different explanations, the link above explained it in a way that made sense to me.

TLDR:

Existence of the sufficient condition GUARANTEES the necessity condition

Absence/Failure/Falsity of necessary condition GUARANTEES the Absence/Failure/Falsity of the sufficient condition

This is not true the other way around

i.e.

failed sufficient tells us nothing about the necessity

present necessity tells us nothing about the sufficient

Easiest example for me to understand this is:

Human life -> oxygen

Human life guarantees presence of oxygen

No oxygen guarantees no human life

no human life (failed sufficient) = don't know about oxygen

oxygen (present necessary) = no idea if human life exists

This example is taken straight from the page referenced above

Best of luck

So basically, the correct AC should read like this:

"participants in a different study about a different topic, belonging to a different group, observed someone else doing a different activity by unknown method of observation, over-reported doing the observed activity"

Explanations of how this weakens the argument sound like mental gymnastics to me

(maybe I'm the idiot)

@DNAlex you are right

I'm no expert... but D is the only one that didn't help explain the discrepancy... soooo...

I think D is the correct answer and the instructor just misspoke

I'm not sure if I mapped this out correctly, but this is how I did it and came to the correct answer.

Greater Heat resistance AND Comparable to Semi -> Preferable

The final sentence of the stimulus references "Vacuums", not just "small experimental vacuums".

Meaning that all vacuums fail to meet the sufficient condition and are therefore not preferable.

EDIT: Can someone help clarify this for me?

I read the sentence "Any component...preferable in digital circuits... but only if...." as

"Any A is B, but only if A is also C"

Does this translate into

A and C -> B

or

B -> A and C