Same, in GTA, planning to apply for the next cycle!

The way the author is supporting his/her conclusion is not by saying that since council couldn't show evidence against shoe factory, then my proposal is correct. That's why A wouldn't be the correct asnwer.

Nope, D does weaken a bit, since the reduction of fatalities could be due to increased number of hospital emergency facilities. However, E seems to be actually strengthening the argument to an extent. The driving education can result in more skillful drivers, which is exactly what the argument is concluding.

Hope that explains :)

Sure, sign me up!

Interested as well!

Interested I am!

I think I might understand what the flaw is here, imagine the following scenario:

- There are only 2 people living in a house, a brother and sister.

- Someone left the stove on after being done with cooking.

- We have no evidence that the brother left it on

- We have no evidence that the sister left it on

- However, since no one else lives there, we know for certain that either of them has left it on!

- The flaw, IMO, is that just because we don't have any evidence against the suspects, that doesn't mean neither of them is the culprit!

In other words, although there is no proof to accuse the campers or the lightning, we could have ruled out any other possible cause of the fire, thus left with these two causes.

Hope that's clear!

I believe E is talking about something that is outside the domain of what we want to strengthen. We care about the rats that have CJ, not the ones that don't, as it would have no impact on the argument.

I would say the very last sentence is the MP:

“So, pheromones are merely a vestige of our evolutionary past”

You're Awesome!