@PS7346Y8 This is a super late response but maybe it'll help someone down the line! The arguments draws conclusions about the merit of this position: the classification of the fossil being reflected by a recent classification rather than Walcott's classification. The content of that position is the scientific significance of the unusual fossils. The evidence about the position's source comes from Walcott being a member of a science group. The argument assumes that Walcott's position must have been the same because he is a member of that group, so we can better understand the fossils by evaluating them under a more recent class of science than an older class.

I prephrased the flaw as being a part to whole flaw, but when I went diving in the ACs, AC A is both descriptively accurate and explains why the conclusion may have been invalidly drawn.

How would you compare approaching the personal statement versus optional diversity statement when it comes to why you want to law and talking about your background? Should they be similar or very different?