Just to start at the same place, (A) says that "Facts about one species of animal can provide confirmation for hypotheses about all species that are similar in all relevant respects to the

particular species in question." In answer choice A, the "facts about one species of animal" that "can provide confirmation for hypotheses about all species" would refer to anteaters. Answer choice A is saying that the fact we just learned about anteaters is useful because humans are "similar in all relevant aspects to the particular species (anteaters) in question." However, the stimulus actually says that humans are different from anteaters. Humans may dream to clear out their memories in their small brains, while anteaters don't need to dream because they have large brains. Thus, answer choice A doesn't make sense when saying that facts about anteaters provide us confirmation for hypotheses about species that are similar in all relevant respects to humans because the stimulus uses anteaters to juxtapose against humans (humans and anteaters are not similar but different). Another problem with A is that A really overgeneralizes. The stimulus is comparing anteaters and humans (two species) not anteaters and "all species" that could be similar in "all relevant aspects" to anteaters as A says. Hope this makes sense and let me know if you have any more questions, I'd be happy to help! :)

The main issue I see with C is that it is talking about something different than the recommendation in the stimulus. The stimulus says that the public health campaign encouraged people to take precautions such as "avoiding public places when they experience influenza symptoms," while C talks about there being "fewer large gatherings than usual during the six-month period." Avoiding public places and partaking in fewer large gatherings are two separate things. Somebody might have engaged in fewer large gatherings over the six months, but not avoided public places meaning C's evidence doesn't strengthen the argument. In fact, C's evidence could be irrelevant really. Let me know if this makes sense!

Same :)

Yes, you got it! Sufficient satisfied -> affirm necessary condition. Necessary failed -> fail sufficient condition. Maybe you can remember it by what triggers the rule - use the acronym SS (sufficient satisfied) is good and then necessary triggers the rule in the opposite way (failed) so NF good also.

The problem with B is that it refers to "most" people. There is no mention of most in the stimulus. C specifies a certain group of people (Joe versus Maria) like the stimulus does (people who drink soft drinks with sugar versus people who drink aspartame soft drinks). That's the main way I differentiated B and C.