Was originally thinking that C was a mild strengthener because there was not a skewed distribution of age, weight, or health, meaning that both the snore and non-snore groups were similar in this way.

HOWEVER, if this were the case, then you could say that the conclusion from the biopsies does not translate to the general population as the conclusion suggests that it does. If everyone in the group were healthy college students, then a conclusion cannot be drawn about the general population, only about healthy college students.

@AlexHaro Well, if you have a "properly inferred" question, then a restatement of content in the premise would certainly be the correct answer. However, if the question is "what is the conclusion" then any part of the premise in an answer that is not the conclusion would be wrong. So short answer, yes.

@ZionBejarano I thought the B was somewhat supported by Meli. She says that we must do what we can to ensure the bighorns survive, even if that means "limiting the mountain lion population". Limiting the population implies losing at least a few individuals, and this would be done to preserve a species. So, you could view B as a potential "general principle" held by Meli. However, it could also be the case that she only cares strongly about this one species.

@jmcconnell1 the common themes can be thought of as interests/concerns e.g. creation or mystical beings

Isn't it inaccurate to say that /(A->B) translates to A ^/B?

Like, /(A->B) does NOT imply A. It could be /A.

We could still say that if /(A -> B) then A^/B could be true, but there is not a biconditional between the two statements.

It is true that A^/B -> /(A -> B) though.

@Natsai_Ndebele Same here! Best of luck