I am interested!

Answer choice B, is exactly what is written in the stimulus -in the second sentence. Why would that still not be the answer?

How would we know where we can't use splitting the conclusion and premise descriptors method?... would it just be where u do not spot a P or C in the ACs?

If there is a PAI question that is also MSS, do we look for the answer choice that supports it the most, even if not explicitly said in one side of the argument?

And on the other hand for PAI questions that do not ask to infer or MSS, we can find the answer by seeing what is explicitly said between the two arguments?

for E it just says irrigation, it doesn't specify seawater or freshwater irrigation, did I miss something?

I figured that B if true, would show that since halophytes need salt, and they would give them salt, there will be greater crop yield since they are getting what they need, which ultimately means seawater agriculture would in fact be cost-effective, so it strengthens the argument. What is the issue with this thought process?

im confused on why this is not a parallel flaw question... corral->causation is a flaw?

for answer choice E, how can we assume that single work station and same work station both mean the same thing, I was going to choose E because it said same, but in the stimulus the rule was single work station ( I thought meaning their individual station)

Does anyone have a tip for identifying subsidiary conclusion versus overall conclusion?