I'm totally in. Will DM you.

I'm in!

Someone #help me here. I am hearing that A is not true because no where in the argument does it say that a given position is widely believed to be true. However, it does say this.

The very first sentence it says Antarctica has GENERALLY been thought to be covered in ice for 14 million years.

The conclusions that the ice MUST have melted 3 million years ago is directly dependent on that given position.

Why?

Because we are assuming the ice must've melted because we believe that it was frozen. The ice could not have melted had it not been frozen.

In a world where the general belief about a 14 million year frozen Antarctica isn't actually correct, we wouldn't be able to conclude that the ice had melted because we wouldn't know that it was already frozen.

I'm not seeing why this isn't a reasoning flaw.