i feel like this question was confusing because of the past couple questions were to either strengthen or weaken the relationship of the analogous system to the conclusion system by either showing that they are similar or dissimilar to the system the conclusion is about, so that was the mindset i was in when going into the answer choices and didn't realize this was actually just an assumption question and required a different strategy than what we have been doing these last couple questions

thank goodness at least the last one is right after getting the last two wrong

@Isabella! this is also a weaken question not strengthen!

I thought it was C and was held onto C but the strategy they are telling us to use is to block alternative hypotheses, so i ended up going with D because it is the only one that is somewhat blocking an alternative hypothesis, so this question is going against the strategy they are telling us to use for strengthen questions...

what if one answer choice rules out another explanation and another answer choice strengthens the proposed hypothesis/can basically confirm it to be true, in that case which answer is the better one?

@Davidsilva14 LOL

Is there any advice of tactics to use when you don't know a word in an answer choice? I am finding I constantly avoid answers that include words i don't know because it is hard to understand what the answer is saying without knowing the word. I didn't know what Artifice meant so I wasn't even considering that answer choice in the raw or br go at this question.

@ss1942 I actually disagree, I don't think we can say all Bs are Cs only that some Bs are Cs. Ill think of an actual example so you can see: All dogs are furry animals, all dogs have four legs. so Dogs->Furry animals, Dogs->four legs. We can say that some Furry animals have four legs (and vice versa) but we can't say that all furry animals have four legs

12/12!!!!!

could you say that because A<-s->B then it is also true that A<-s->/B because it if Not all of A is B then there is some A that is not B

Do you think we can say then that if A->B then B-s->A because there has to be at least one B that is A if all A is B

Could we also say then if A->B and A->C that B<-s->C?

Hmm, I am not sure if this is taught later or if this wouldn't be able to be a conclusion drawn, but If A-m->B would we then be able to conclude that B-s->A?