Really thought I ate clocking B.

I would suggest not getting caught up in all their formal logic and writing out every question. It completely over complicates everything. All you need to do is read the stimulus, identify the conclusion, and find the gap in the argument. Before looking at the answer choices, predict what you think the right answer is.

I got this question right in legit like 2 min. I just read the explanation of this question and have no idea what I just read and its nothing like what I did.

I read the stimulus, immediately identifying the conclusion and premises. Then I noticed that the premises discuss "intelligence" a lot, but spacecraft is mentioned and seemed to not be spoken about anywhere else in the stim. Like, spacecraft wasn't being connected to anything, it was kinda just there, so I figured the assumption lied in determining what the spacecraft is good for. Why do we care that spacecrafts won't be able to be sent? Therefore, I immediately went to the answer choices and started hunting for a "spacecraft" answer that would help resolve this issue. Answer choice D is the only answer that acknowledged this issue and solved it.

I hope that makes sense. On one of the previous questions I think they used a method similar to this.

#feedback So when can you contrapose??

Yes, I think they key was acknowledging that being "accepted by the public" and being to the "satisfaction of all skeptics" are not the same. Here, the public and skeptics are 2 separate groups, and just because the public accepts this idea, it does not mean that the skeptics do.

So basically, the smaller amount needs to come before the larger amount in order for an argument to be true