When there is an alternate cause to a specific phenomenon, sometimes the flaw is mistaking correlation for cause. This type of argument is a mistaken cause from a mere correlation. Minivans themselves do not cause accidents, it’s instead the driver behind the wheel. It can be reasonably inferred that accident prone drivers chose sports cars over minivans, therefore an alternate cause proves that this question is a mistaken correlation.

To my understanding, the arguement goes like this:

H -> CM

EF -> CM

Therefore, if H -> EF

This is not a necessary / sufficiency mistake (which would conclude CM -> EF) , but rather the argument wrongly assumes that Humourous ads are the only ones effective ones.

Fell for the trap in q6. Really important to understand the question stem and not fly through it.

I'm down. Also planning on taking August. Took April and got a 161, hoping to hit 165+ on August. Looking to study about 20hrs a week.

Hearing J.Y. say f*ck is hilarious