I got this right but the use of the word "primarily" tripped me up a little bit. Could someone verify my analysis of the NA/SA is correct? Assume I am using "Desire Praise" and "Desire FOO" interchangeably and "Merit Praise" and "Deserve Praise" interchangeably.

Premise 1: Deserve praise--->action motivated by helping others

Contra 1: /action motivated by helping others-->/ Deserve praise

Premise 2: missing

Conclusion: action motivated PRIMARILY by desire for praise--->/deserve praise

NECESSARY ASSUMPTION: action motivated PRIMARILY by desire for praise--->/action motivated by helping others

-this is the "bare minimum" you need to make this argument work, though I am confused as to why this isn't also a sufficient assumption.

SUFFICIENT ASSUMPTION: action motivated (IN ANY PART!) by desire for praise--->/action motivated by helping others (answer choice A)

-this is stronger than what you need; it is sufficient, but not necessary, to make the argument work.

Does this make sense? I feel like I am way overthinking a question I instinctively understood and getting myself more confused.

Holy cow I'm in NYC and I just went to register for October thinking I would have plenty of options and there are none. Once I get to the test center portion of the registration no options pop up and I can't continue. How did you get on the wait list? This is insane.

#help I am really struggling with this, I just don't understand. Also, just to note--I realize for strengthen questions we do not necessarily need full validity, just something that makes the conclusion more likely to be true by helping to fill a gap in the argument.

From my point of view, answer choice A and answer choice B both provide some (very weak) strength to this argument, and both require major assumptions to do so. When I read the stimulus, without having even glanced at the answer choices, I said to myself, "how do we know the hominids didn't invent/find the spears in North America and bring them back across the bridge to Siberia?"

Answer choice B (which I picked) directly answers that question: the bridge disappeared before any of these spears were invented, so the hominids could not have brought them back over the bridge from North America. The assumption this requires is that there was not another land mass/bridge between Siberia and North America that the hominids used to bring the spears back. I understand this is not a perfect strengthener, but I definitely think this information gives support to the conclusion---it spoke to the gap I immediately identified in the stimulus.

Answer choice A helps to fill a different gap: the spears that have been found in Siberia are older than the spears that have been found in North America, so it is unlikely the spears were invented in North America. This strengthener requires two fairly large assumptions: a) there are not unfound spears in Siberia younger than the North American ones, or unfound spears in North America older than the Siberian ones, and b) THAT THE OLDER SPEARS FOUND IN SIBERIA WERE NOT BROUGHT BACK ACROSS THE BRIDGE FROM NORTH AMERICA. I don't think its a huge leap to think that the first hominids that traveled to North America and invented the spears there, and brought them back across the bridge into Siberia (putting the oldest spears in Siberia).

Maybe I am overthinking this, but this question is insane.