I think D weakens because of the two options, genetics or environment, across cultures and time genetics vary only a little, whereas environment varies a lot.

If you are then looking to weaken the argument that environmental factors do not really affect anything, by showing the huge variance across time and culture and that genetics can’t really explain it, environment is most likely the bigger factor in effecting interest in sports.

"Just kick out students" AHAHAHAHA. This is why 7Sage is good.

@selahk01969 said:

confused on why D is the correct choice, I chose c as I thought it would call into question whether the rock may have, at some point, been underwater.

This question is the paleontologist question.

a) This answer is wrong because it corroborates the premise.

b) Wrong because it further supports the premise that the oceans were not the origin of life

c) Wrong because, while it does say that some portions of the rock were submerged in the oceans, it confirms that at least some of the rocks were definitely not submerged. It's a tricky one because it has that first part that seems to weaken the conclusion, but the second have of the question is actually what matters.

d) This is the correct answer because it confirms a different source for the carbon 14 other than decomposed life on land. The C14 came from the atmosphere, so it either could have been put into the atmosphere from ocean creatures or land creatures, therefore doing nothing for or against the argument.

e) Wrong because it corroborates a claim of the premise.

If you would like to translate to sufficient/necessary, I had:

If one can presume that vagueness is an attempt to deceive (PVAD, then the manufacturer receives large benefits from the deception (MRLB).

Manufacturers receiving large benefits is a necessary condition for being able to presume that vagueness is an attempt to deceive.

PVAD -> MRLB