@Sykiara it's definitely a hit or miss, but for me it really worked! a lot of the lessons on here correspond with what the Loophole talks about so it's nice having that background information when learning everything else.

here's how i broke it down if this helps anyone:

a: if anything this just explains how MTDK have adapted to no opposable thumbs by moving slower

b: irrelevant, body size was not mentioned thus does not matter/relate.

c: this does not explain how they came to lack the attributes, simply compares what they do have to MLDK.

d: boom, this offers an explanation for how they lack these attributes. because their ancestors were LDK, MODERN TDK do not have the same attributes as ancestral TDK. i think for me, the key word was modern, because this gets me thinking that they did not come from the common ancestor but instead evolved from another generation of LDK. AC D is also the only answer choice that actually gives an explanation for the phenomenon instead of just describing other attributes and adaptations.

e: again, similar to a, this describes an adaptation due to loss of attributes but not how they came to lose/lack them.

@arianacardwell i am but it's caveman writing LOL

@LindsayGeer i thought this too!

here's how i broke it down if this helps anyone:

this is a question where the safest strategy to HELP the author's assumption (iron-rich diet = more chance of Parkinson's) is to ELIMINATE ALTERNATIVES.

so if we go back to the third-factor correlation and implement it into this scenario, someone could walk up to the author and go like "what if it's genetics? what if people WITH the genetic predisposition are just eating more iron?" and this would diminish the author's argument.

"Most people who have a genetic predisposition to Parkinson's disease have no more iron in their diets than people without the predisposition."

this answer basically says the levels of iron in both groups are the same. therefore, if someone did bring the third factor of genetics in, the author could say no, genetics is not correlated with iron levels. this doesn't prove the original assumption/hypothesis but we are not looking to prove, simply to strengthen, and that is what this answer does. we are lowering the chances of it being genetics which in turn, increases the chances of it being iron levels. i found that the answer is erasing the correlation between iron levels and genetics, which helped me understand it better.

dangerous sidewalks -> not open to public

icy sidewalk -> dangerous

if icy sidewalk -> not open to public

CONTRAPOSITIVE: if open to public -> not icy sidewalk

therefore valid conclusion.

started with the loophole a month ago and now FINALLY actually locking in and studying

the "most" = more than half of reminds me of the negation/contrapositive techniques that the loophole has

@Prenny you essentially get to redo the question without seeing the answer. like a second chance.

@ConstantineChaconas i'm aiming for september! good luck :)